MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128672366 · doi:10.1186/s13073-021-00838-6

Improved prediction of fracture risk leveraging a genome-wide polygenic risk score

2021· article· en· W3128672366 on OpenAlexafffund
Tianyuan Lu, Vincenzo Forgetta, Julyan Keller‐Baruch, Maria Nethander, Derrick Bennett, Marie Forest, Sahir Bhatnagar, Robin Walters, Kuang Lin, Zhengming Chen, Liming Li, Magnus K. Karlsson, Dan Mellström, Eric Orwoll, Eugène McCloskey, John А. Kanis, William D. Leslie, Robert Clarke, Claes Ohlsson, Celia M.T. Greenwood, J. Brent Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome CentreMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill UniversitySkånes universitetssjukhusKing's College LondonOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreWellcome TrustSahlgrenska UniversitetssjukhusetAustralian Catholic UniversityLunds UniversitetNovo Nordisk FondenPeking UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of OxfordCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCompute CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioOsteoporosisPolygenic risk scoreOsteoporotic fractureDemographyOddsInternal medicineRisk assessmentStatisticsPhysical therapyBone mineralSingle-nucleotide polymorphismLogistic regressionGeneticsBiologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurately quantifying the risk of osteoporotic fracture is important for directing appropriate clinical interventions. While skeletal measures such as heel quantitative speed of sound (SOS) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone mineral density are able to predict the risk of osteoporotic fracture, the utility of such measurements is subject to the availability of equipment and human resources. Using data from 341,449 individuals of white British ancestry, we previously developed a genome-wide polygenic risk score (PRS), called gSOS, that captured 25.0% of the total variance in SOS. Here, we test whether gSOS can improve fracture risk prediction. METHODS: We examined the predictive power of gSOS in five genome-wide genotyped cohorts, including 90,172 individuals of European ancestry and 25,034 individuals of Asian ancestry. We calculated gSOS for each individual and tested for the association between gSOS and incident major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. We tested whether adding gSOS to the risk prediction models had added value over models using other commonly used clinical risk factors. RESULTS: A standard deviation decrease in gSOS was associated with an increased odds of incident major osteoporotic fracture in populations of European ancestry, with odds ratios ranging from 1.35 to 1.46 in four cohorts. It was also associated with a 1.26-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.41) increased odds of incident major osteoporotic fracture in the Asian population. We demonstrated that gSOS was more predictive of incident major osteoporotic fracture (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) = 0.734; 95% CI 0.727-0.740) and incident hip fracture (AUROC = 0.798; 95% CI 0.791-0.805) than most traditional clinical risk factors, including prior fracture, use of corticosteroids, rheumatoid arthritis, and smoking. We also showed that adding gSOS to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) could refine the risk prediction with a positive net reclassification index ranging from 0.024 to 0.072. CONCLUSIONS: We generated and validated a PRS for SOS which was associated with the risk of fracture. This score was more strongly associated with the risk of fracture than many clinical risk factors and provided an improvement in risk prediction. gSOS should be explored as a tool to improve risk stratification to identify individuals at high risk of fracture.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations66
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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