PRS-on-Spark (PRSoS): a novel, efficient and flexible approach for generating polygenic risk scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Polygenic risk scores describe the genomic contribution to complex phenotypes and consistently account for a larger proportion of the variance than single nucleotide polymorphisms alone. However, there is little consensus on the optimal data input for generating polygenic risk scores and existing approaches largely preclude the use of imputed posterior probabilities and strand-ambiguous SNPs. Results We developed PRS-on-Spark (PRSoS) a polygenic risk score software implemented in Apache Spark and Python that accommodates a variety of data input (e.g., observed genotypes, imputed genotypes, or imputed posterior probabilities) and strand-ambiguous SNPs. We show that PRSoS is flexible and efficient and computes polygenic risk scores at a range of p-value thresholds more quickly than existing software (PRSice). We also show that the use of imputed posterior probabilities and the inclusion of strand-ambiguous SNPs increases the proportion of variance explained by polygenic risk scores for major depression. Availability and Implementation PRSoS is written in Apache Spark and Python and is freely available (see https://github.com/MeaneyLab/PRSoS ).
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".