The evolution of genetic-based risk scores for lipids and cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With improved next-generation sequencing technology, open-access genetic databases and increased awareness of complex trait genetics, we are entering a new era of risk assessment in which genetic-based risk scores (GRSs) will play a clinical role. We review the concepts underlying polygenic models of disease susceptibility and challenges in clinical implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: Polygenic risk scores are currently used in genetic research on dyslipidemias and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although the underlying principles for constructing polygenic scores for lipids are established, the lack of consensus on which score to use is indicated by the large number - about 50 - that have been published. Recently, large-scale polygenic scores for CVD appear to afford superior risk prediction compared to small-scale scores. Despite the potential benefits of GRSs, certain biases towards ethnicity and sex need to be worked through. SUMMARY: We are on the verge of clinical application of GRSs to provide incremental information on dyslipidemia and CVD risk above and beyond traditional clinical variables. Additional work is required to develop a consensus of how such scores will be constructed and measured in a validated manner, as well as clinical indications for their use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".