MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892262505 · doi:10.1101/413716

Machine Learning to Predict Osteoporotic Fracture Risk from Genotypes

2018· preprint· en· W2892262505 on OpenAlexaff
Vincenzo Forgetta, Julyan Keller‐Baruch, Marie Forest, Audrey Durand, Sahir Bhatnagar, John P. Kemp, John Morris, John А. Kanis, Douglas P. Kiel, Eugène McCloskey, Fernando Rivadeneira, Helena Johannson, Nicholas C. Harvey, Cyrus Cooper, David M. Evans, Joëlle Pineau, William D. Leslie, Celia M.T. Greenwood, J. Brent Richards

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFRAXMedicineOsteoporosisDecileFemoral neckInternal medicineHip fractureBone mineralOsteoporotic fractureMachine learningOncologyStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Genomics-based prediction could be useful since genome-wide genotyping costs less than many clinical tests. We tested whether machine learning methods could provide a clinically-relevant genomic prediction of quantitative ultrasound speed of sound (SOS)—a risk factor for osteoporotic fracture. Methods We used 341,449 individuals from UK Biobank with SOS measures to develop genomically-predicted SOS (gSOS) using machine learning algorithms. We selected the optimal algorithm in 5,335 independent individuals and then validated it and its ability to predict incident fracture in an independent test dataset (N = 80,027). Finally, we explored whether genomic pre-screening could complement a UK-based osteoporosis screening strategy, based on the validated tool FRAX. Results gSOS explained 4.8-fold more variance in SOS than FRAX clinical risk factors (CRF) alone ( r 2 = 23% vs. 4.8%). A standard deviation decrease in gSOS, adjusting for the CRF-FRAX score was associated with a higher increased odds of incident major osteoporotic fracture (1,491 cases / 78,536 controls, OR = 1.91 [1.70-2.14], P = 10 -28 ) than that for measured SOS (OR = 1.60 [1.50-1.69], P = 10 -52 ) and femoral neck bone mineral density (147 cases / 4,594 controls, OR = 1.53 [1.27-1.83], P = 10 -6 ). Individuals in the bottom decile of the gSOS distribution had a 3.25-fold increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture (P = 10 -18 ) compared to the top decile. A gSOS-based FRAX score, identified individuals at high risk for incident major osteoporotic fractures better than the CRF-FRAX score (P = 10 -14 ). Introducing a genomic pre-screening step into osteoporosis screening in 4,741 individuals reduced the number of required clinical visits from 2,455 to 1,273 and the number of BMD tests from 1,013 to 473, while only reducing the sensitivity to identify individuals eligible for therapy from 99% to 95%. Interpretation The use of genotypes in a machine learning algorithm resulted in a clinically-relevant prediction of SOS and fracture, with potential to impact healthcare resource utilization. Research in Context Evidence Before this Study Genome-wide association studies have identified many loci associated with risk of clinically-relevant fracture risk factors, such as SOS. Yet, it is unclear if such information can be leveraged to identify those at risk for disease outcomes, such as osteoporotic fractures. Most previous attempts to predict disease risk from genotypes have used polygenic risk scores, which may not be optimal for genomic-prediction. Despite these obstacles, genomic-prediction could enable screening programs to be more efficient since most people screened in a population are not determined to have a level of risk that would prompt a change in clinical care. Genomic pre-screening could help identify individuals whose risk of disease is low enough that they are unlikely to benefit from screening. Added Value of this Study Using a large dataset of 426,811 individuals we trained and tested a machine learning algorithm to genomically-predict SOS. This metric, gSOS, had performance characteristics for predicting fracture risk that were similar to measured SOS and femoral neck BMD. Implementing a gSOS-based pre-screening step into the UK-based osteoporosis treatment guidelines reduced the number of individuals who would require screening clinical visits and skeletal testing by approximately 50%, while having little impact on the sensitivity to identify individuals at high risk for osteoporotic fracture. Implications of all of the Available Evidence Clinically-relevant genomic prediction of heritable traits is feasible using the machine learning algorithm presented here in large sample sizes. Genome-wide genotyping is now less expensive than many clinical tests, needs to be performed once over a lifetime and could risk stratify for multiple heritable traits and diseases years prior to disease onset, providing an opportunity for prevention. The implementation of such algorithms could improve screening efficiency, yet their cost-effectiveness will need to be ascertained in subsequent analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207