Polygenic scores for dyslipidemia: the emerging genomic model of plasma lipoprotein trait inheritance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Contemporary polygenic scores, which summarize the cumulative contribution of millions of common single-nucleotide variants to a phenotypic trait, can have effects comparable to monogenic mutations. This review focuses on the emerging use of 'genome-wide' polygenic scores for plasma lipoproteins to define the etiology of clinical dyslipidemia, modify the severity of monogenic disease, and inform therapeutic options. RECENT FINDINGS: Polygenic scores for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are associated with severe hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, or hypoalphalipoproteinemia, respectively. These polygenic scores for LDL-C or triglycerides associate with risk of incident coronary artery disease (CAD) independent of polygenic scores designed specifically for CAD and may identify individuals that benefit most from lipid-lowering medication. Additionally, the severity of hypercholesterolemia and CAD associated with familial hypercholesterolemia-a common monogenic disorder-is modified by these polygenic factors. The current focus of polygenic scores for dyslipidemia is to design predictive polygenic scores for diverse populations and determining how these polygenic scores could be implemented and standardized for use in the clinic. SUMMARY: Polygenic scores have shown early promise for the management of dyslipidemias, but several challenges need to be addressed before widespread clinical implementation to ensure that potential benefits are robust and reproducible, equitable, and cost-effective.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".