Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Compares self-declared and genome-derived ancestry in 10,250 participants, indicating a need for nuanced ancestral representation.
Accurate characterization of human genetic diversity is essential for robust genomic analyses. We compared self-declared and genome-derived ancestry composition in 10,250 participants from the pan-Canadian HostSeq cohort using whole-genome sequencing data. Global and local ancestry were inferred at the continental super-population level using the alignment-free ntRoot algorithm and evaluated through both hard-label concordance and multiclass Brier score analyses incorporating full ancestry fraction profiles. Strong agreement was observed among East Asian/Pacific Islander (mean Brier score ± SD: 0.012 ± 0.052), Black (0.013 ± 0.042), White (0.055 ± 0.022), and South Asian (0.057 ± 0.098) participants, whereas higher scores among Hispanic (0.083 ± 0.060) and Middle Eastern or Central Asian (0.122 ± 0.034) participants reflected broader and more admixed ancestry profiles. Principal component analysis of centered log-ratio-transformed ancestry fractions revealed overlapping ancestry gradients rather than discrete continental groupings. Entropy- and dominance margin-based analyses further indicated that many discordant cases reflected diffuse admixture rather than categorical mismatch. Together, these findings support representing ancestry as a continuous compositional spectrum rather than discrete categories. Genome-derived ancestry estimates describe patterns of genomic variation and should not be interpreted as proxies for race.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Warren et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: