ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Old vs. New Local Ancestry Inference in HCHS/SOL: A Comparative Study.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hispanic/Latino populations are admixed, with genetic contributions from multiple ancestral populations. Studies of genetic association in these admixed populations often use methods such as admixture mapping, which relies on inferred counts of "local" ancestry, i.e., of the source ancestral population at a locus. Local ancestries are inferred using external reference panels that represent ancestral populations, making the choice of inference method and reference panel critical. This study used a dataset of Hispanic/Latino individuals from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) to evaluate the "old" local ancestry inference performed using the state-of-the-art inference method, RFMix, alongside "new" inferences performed using Fast Local Ancestry Estimation (FLARE), which also used an updated reference panel. We compared their performance in terms of global and local ancestry correlations, as well as admixture mapping-based associations. Overall, the old RFMix and new FLARE inferences were highly similar for both global and local ancestries, with FLARE-inferred datasets yielding admixture mapping results consistent with those computed from RFMix. However, in some genomic regions the old and new local ancestries have relatively lower correlations (Pearson R < 0.9). Most of these genomic regions (86.42%) were mapped to either ENCODE blacklist regions, or to gene clusters, compared to 7.67% of randomly-matched regions with high correlations (Pearson R > 0.97) between old and new local ancestries.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.