GWAS findings improved genomic prediction accuracy of lipid profile traits: Tehran Cardiometabolic Genetic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, ongoing GWAS findings discovered novel therapeutic modifications such as whole-genome risk prediction in particular. Here, we proposed a method based on integrating the traditional genomic best linear unbiased prediction (gBLUP) approach with GWAS information to boost genetic prediction accuracy and gene-based heritability estimation. This study was conducted in the framework of the Tehran Cardio-metabolic Genetic study (TCGS) containing 14,827 individuals and 649,932 SNP markers. Five SNP subsets were selected based on GWAS results: top 1%, 5%, 10%, 50% significant SNPs, and reported associated SNPs in previous studies. Furthermore, we randomly selected subsets as large as every five subsets. Prediction accuracy has been investigated on lipid profile traits with a tenfold and 10-repeat cross-validation algorithm by the gBLUP method. Our results revealed that genetic prediction based on selected subsets of SNPs obtained from the dataset outperformed the subsets from previously reported SNPs. Selected SNPs' subsets acquired a more precise prediction than whole SNPs and much higher than randomly selected SNPs. Also, common SNPs with the most captured prediction accuracy in the selected sets caught the highest gene-based heritability. However, it is better to be mindful of the fact that a small number of SNPs obtained from GWAS results could capture a highly notable proportion of variance and prediction accuracy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".