A comprehensive analysis of methods for assessing polygenic burden on Alzheimer’s disease pathology and risk beyond APOE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genome-wide association studies have identified dozens of loci that alter the risk to develop Alzheimer’s disease. However, with the exception of the APOE-ε4 allele, most variants bear only little individual effect and have, therefore, limited diagnostic and prognostic value. Polygenic risk scores aim to collate the disease risk distributed across the genome in a single score. Recent works have demonstrated that polygenic risk scores designed for Alzheimer’s disease are predictive of clinical diagnosis, pathology confirmed diagnosis and changes in imaging biomarkers. Methodological innovations in polygenic risk modelling include the polygenic hazard score, which derives effect estimates for individual single nucleotide polymorphisms from survival analysis, and methods that account for linkage disequilibrium between genomic loci. In this work, using data from the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative, we compared different approaches to quantify polygenic disease burden for Alzheimer’s disease and their association (beyond the APOE locus) with a broad range of Alzheimer’s disease-related traits: cross-sectional CSF biomarker levels, cross-sectional cortical amyloid burden, clinical diagnosis, clinical progression, longitudinal loss of grey matter and longitudinal decline in cognitive function. We found that polygenic scores were associated beyond APOE with clinical diagnosis, CSF-tau levels and, to a minor degree, with progressive atrophy. However, for many other tested traits such as clinical disease progression, CSF amyloid, cognitive decline and cortical amyloid load, the additional effects of polygenic burden beyond APOE were of minor nature. Overall, polygenic risk scores and the polygenic hazard score performed equally and given the ease with which polygenic risk scores can be derived; they constitute the more practical choice in comparison with polygenic hazard scores. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that incomplete adjustment for the APOE locus, i.e. only adjusting for APOE-ε4 carrier status, can lead to overestimated effects of polygenic scores due to APOE-ε4 homozygous participants. Lastly, on many of the tested traits, the major driving factor remained the APOE locus, with the exception of quantitative CSF-tau and p-tau measures.
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 | 0.032 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".