ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Systematic benchmarking of multi-ancestry fine-mapping under variant heterogeneity and LD mismatch.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasingly diverse, multi-ancestry genome-wide association studies (GWASs) provide unprecedented opportunities to better understand the genetic architecture of complex traits. In particular, differences in linkage disequilibrium (LD) patterns across populations can be leveraged to improve the resolution and reliability of statistical fine-mapping. However, cross-ancestry effect heterogeneity, population-specific variant support, and LD mismatches pose substantial challenges, motivating a systematic evaluation of multi-ancestry fine-mapping methods to provide practical guidance for analyses across diverse populations. We conducted a comprehensive benchmarking of nine methods, spanning joint probabilistic models that explicitly model cross-ancestry LD and effect sharing, and univariate-based integration approaches that aggregate ancestry-specific results. We evaluated fine-mapping accuracy, robustness, and computational efficiency using realistic simulations derived from UK Biobank genotype data, with real-data validation in the All of Us Research Program. Our study revealed that joint modeling approaches achieve improved power and resolution for causal variants shared across populations. In comparison, post-hoc integration is more robust in recovering causal variants present in only a subset of populations by accommodating differences in variant availability. Moreover, methods are generally underpowered in the presence of systematic discrepancies between GWAS summary statistics and external LD reference panels. Motivated by these complementary performance profiles, we propose the multi-ancestry fine-mapping decision strategy, which avoids a priori method selection by adaptively selecting approaches based on locus-level evidence of ancestry-specific variants. Together, our benchmarking and decision strategy offer practical guidance for robust multi-ancestry fine-mapping and highlight the importance of joint modeling that effectively accounts for ancestry-specific variant availability and LD mismatch.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.