A Polygenic Risk Score to Predict Future Adult Short Stature Among Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Adult height is highly heritable, yet no genetic predictor has demonstrated clinical utility compared to mid-parental height. OBJECTIVE: To develop a polygenic risk score for adult height and evaluate its clinical utility. DESIGN: A polygenic risk score was constructed based on meta-analysis of genomewide association studies and evaluated on the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) cohort. SUBJECTS: Participants included 442 599 genotyped White British individuals in the UK Biobank and 941 genotyped child-parent trios of European ancestry in the ALSPAC cohort. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standing height was measured using stadiometer; Standing height 2 SDs below the sex-specific population average was considered as short stature. RESULTS: Combined with sex, a polygenic risk score captured 71.1% of the total variance in adult height in the UK Biobank. In the ALSPAC cohort, the polygenic risk score was able to identify children who developed adulthood short stature with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.84, which is close to that of mid-parental height. Combining this polygenic risk score with mid-parental height or only one of the child's parent's height could improve the AUROC to at most 0.90. The polygenic risk score could also substitute mid-parental height in age-specific Khamis-Roche height predictors and achieve an equally strong discriminative power in identifying children with a short stature in adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: A polygenic risk score could be considered as an alternative or adjunct to mid-parental height to improve screening for children at risk of developing short stature in adulthood in European ancestry populations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".