Polygenic Risk Score for Alzheimer's Disease in Caribbean Hispanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) assess the individual genetic propensity to a condition by combining sparse information scattered across genetic loci, often displaying small effect sizes. Most PRSs are constructed in European-ancestry populations, limiting their use in other ethnicities. Here we constructed and validated a PRS for late-onset Alzheimer's Disease (LOAD) in Caribbean Hispanics (CH). METHODS: We used a CH discovery (n = 4,312) and independent validation sample (n = 1,850) to construct an ancestry-specific PRS ("CH-PRS") and evaluated its performance alone and with other predictors using the area under curve (AUC) and logistic regression (strength of association with LOAD and statistical significance). We tested if CH-PRS predicted conversion to LOAD in a subsample with longitudinal data (n = 1,239). We also tested the CH-PRS in an independent replication CH cohort (n = 200) and brain autopsy cohort (n = 33). Finally, we tested the effect of ancestry on PRS by using European and African American discovery cohorts to construct alternative PRSs ("EUR-PRS", "AA-PRS"). RESULTS: = 1.51 95%CI = 1.36-1.68), raising to >75% in APOE-ɛ4 non-carriers. CH-PRS alone achieved an AUC = 72% in the autopsy cohort, raising to AUC = 83% in full model. Higher CH-PRS was significantly associated with clinical LOAD in the replication CH cohort (OR = 1.61, 95%CI = 1.19-2.17) and significantly predicted conversion to LOAD (HR = 1.93, CI = 1.70-2.20) in the longitudinal subsample. EUR-PRS and AA-PRS reached lower prediction accuracy (AUC = 58% and 53%, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Enriching diversity in genetic studies is critical to provide an effective PRS in profiling LOAD risk across populations. ANN NEUROL 2021;90:366-376.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".