MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121074038 · doi:10.1186/s13073-020-00820-8

Clinical laboratory test-wide association scan of polygenic scores identifies biomarkers of complex disease

2021· article· en· W3121074038 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Dennis, Julia Sealock, Péter Straub, Young A Lee, Donald Hucks, Ky’Era V. Actkins, Annika Faucon, Yen‐Chen Anne Feng, Tian Ge, Slavina B. Goleva, Maria Niarchou, Kritika Singh, Theodore Morley, Jordan W. Smoller, Douglas M. Ruderfer, Jonathan D. Mosley, Guanhua Chen, Lea K. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on AgingAmerican Heart AssociationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthVanderbilt University Medical CenterDivision of Materials ResearchVanderbilt UniversityNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Center for Research ResourcesGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AllianceNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMassachusetts General HospitalNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsBiobankMedicineHeritabilityPopulationDiseaseBiomarkerInternal medicineBioinformaticsGeneticsBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical laboratory (lab) tests are used in clinical practice to diagnose, treat, and monitor disease conditions. Test results are stored in electronic health records (EHRs), and a growing number of EHRs are linked to patient DNA, offering unprecedented opportunities to query relationships between genetic risk for complex disease and quantitative physiological measurements collected on large populations. METHODS: A total of 3075 quantitative lab tests were extracted from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's (VUMC) EHR system and cleaned for population-level analysis according to our QualityLab protocol. Lab values extracted from BioVU were compared with previous population studies using heritability and genetic correlation analyses. We then tested the hypothesis that polygenic risk scores for biomarkers and complex disease are associated with biomarkers of disease extracted from the EHR. In a proof of concept analyses, we focused on lipids and coronary artery disease (CAD). We cleaned lab traits extracted from the EHR performed lab-wide association scans (LabWAS) of the lipids and CAD polygenic risk scores across 315 heritable lab tests then replicated the pipeline and analyses in the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank. RESULTS: Heritability estimates of lipid values (after cleaning with QualityLab) were comparable to previous reports and polygenic scores for lipids were strongly associated with their referent lipid in a LabWAS. LabWAS of the polygenic score for CAD recapitulated canonical heart disease biomarker profiles including decreased HDL, increased pre-medication LDL, triglycerides, blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (HgbA1C) in European and African descent populations. Notably, many of these associations remained even after adjusting for the presence of cardiovascular disease and were replicated in the MGBB. CONCLUSIONS: Polygenic risk scores can be used to identify biomarkers of complex disease in large-scale EHR-based genomic analyses, providing new avenues for discovery of novel biomarkers and deeper understanding of disease trajectories in pre-symptomatic individuals. We present two methods and associated software, QualityLab and LabWAS, to clean and analyze EHR labs at scale and perform a Lab-Wide Association Scan.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations140
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207