Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40606669›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025

Data simulation to optimize frameworks for genome-wide association studies in diverse populations.

Jacquiline W Mugo, Nicola Mulder, Emile R Chimusa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jacquiline W MugoAllergology and Clinical Immunology Unit, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Nicola MulderDivision of Computational Biology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Medical School Cape Town, Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Emile R ChimusaDepartment of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole-genome or genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have become a fundamental part of modern genetic studies and methods for dissecting the genetic architecture of common traits based on common polymorphisms in random populations. It is hoped that there would be many potential uses of these identified variants, including a better understanding of the pathogenesis of traits, disease risk prediction, discovery of biomarkers, and clinical prediction of drug treatments for populations and global health. Questions have been raised about whether associations that are largely discovered in European ancestry populations are replicable in diverse populations, can inform medical decision-making globally, and how efficiently current GWAS tools perform in populations of high genetic diversity, multi-wave genetic admixture, and low linkage disequilibrium, such as African populations. Here, we discuss some of the challenges in association mapping and leverage genomic data simulation to mimic structured African, European, and multi-way admixed populations to evaluate the replicability of association signals from current state-of-the-art GWAS tools. We use the results to discuss optimized frameworks for the analysis of GWAS data in diverse populations. Finally, we outline the implications, challenges, and opportunities these studies present for populations of non-European descent.

Indexed as

admixtureadmixture mappinggenetic diversitygenetic riskGWASpopulation geneticswhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID40606669
PMCPMC12213643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.