Polygenic Risk Score for Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Is Associated With Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease and Enriches for Individuals With Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of a polygenic risk score (PRS) for LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) are not well understood, both within the general population and individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). METHODS: We developed the LDL-C PRS using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression in 377 286 White British participants from UK Biobank and tested its association with LDL-C according to FH variant carrier status in another 41 748 whole-exome sequenced individuals. Next, we tested for an enrichment of FH variant carriers among individuals with severe hypercholesterolemia and low LDL-C PRS. Last, we contrasted the effect of the LDL-C PRS, measured LDL-C and FH variant carrier status on risk of ischemic heart disease among 3010 cases and 38 738 controls. RESULTS: Among the 41 748 whole-exome sequenced White British individuals, 1-SD increase in the LDL-C PRS was associated with elevated LDL-C among both FH variant carriers (0.34 [95% CI, 0.22-0.47] mmol/L) and noncarriers (0.42 [95% CI, 0.42-0.43] mmol/L). Among individuals with severe hypercholesterolemia, FH variant carriers were enriched in those with a low LDL-C PRS (odds ratio, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.66-2.71] per SD). Each SD increase in the LDL-C PRS was associated with risk of ischemic heart disease to the comparable magnitude as measured LDL-C (odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.20-1.29] and odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.09-1.23], respectively). The LDL-C PRS was not strongly associated with other traditional ischemic heart disease risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: An LDL-C PRS could be used to identify individuals with a higher probability of harboring FH variants. The association between ischemic heart disease and the LDL-C PRS was comparable to measured LDL-C, likely because the PRS reflects lifetime exposure to LDL-C levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".