Bivariate Analysis of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Progression Using Genetic Risk Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ding et al. used data from large clinical trials to evaluate the effects of known age-related macular generation (AMD) risk variants on disease progression... Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness in the developed world. While many AMD susceptibility variants have been identified, their influence on AMD progression has not been elucidated. Using data from two large clinical trials, Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) and AREDS2, we evaluated the effects of 34 known risk variants on disease progression. In doing so, we calculated the eye-level time-to-late AMD and modeled them using a bivariate survival analysis approach, appropriately accounting for between-eye correlation. We then derived a genetic risk score (GRS) based on these 34 risk variants, and analyzed its effect on AMD progression. Finally, we used the AREDS data to fit prediction models of progression based on demographic and environmental factors, eye-level AMD severity scores and the GRS and tested the models using the AREDS2 cohort. We observed that GRS was significantly associated with AMD progression in both cohorts, with a stronger effect in AREDS than in AREDS2 (AREDS: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.34, P = 1.6 × 10−22; AREDS2: HR = 1.11, P = 2.1 × 10−4). For prediction of AMD progression, addition of GRS to the demographic/environmental risk factors considerably improved the prediction performance. However, when the baseline eye-level severity scores were included as the predictors, any other risk factors including the GRS only provided small additional predictive power. Our model for predicting the disease progression risk demonstrated satisfactory performance in both cohorts, and we recommend its use with baseline AMD severity scores plus baseline age, education level, and smoking status, either with or without GRS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".