Global biobank analyses provide lessons for developing polygenic risk scores across diverse cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary With the increasing availability of biobank-scale datasets that incorporate both genomic data and electronic health records, many associations between genetic variants and phenotypes of interest have been discovered. Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which are being widely explored in precision medicine, use the results of association studies to predict the genetic component of disease risk by accumulating risk alleles weighted by their effect sizes. However, few studies have thoroughly investigated best practices for PRS in global populations across different diseases. In this study, we utilize data from the Global-Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative (GBMI), which consists of individuals from diverse ancestries and across continents, to explore methodological considerations and PRS prediction performance in 9 different biobanks for 14 disease endpoints. Specifically, we constructed PRS using heuristic (pruning and thresholding, P+T) and Bayesian (PRS-CS) methods. We found that the genetic architecture, such as SNP-based heritability and polygenicity, varied greatly among endpoints. For both PRS construction methods, using a European ancestry LD reference panel resulted in comparable or higher prediction accuracy compared to several other non-European based panels; this is largely attributable to European descent populations still comprising the majority of GBMI participants. PRS-CS overall outperformed the classic P+T method, especially for endpoints with higher SNP-based heritability. For example, substantial improvements are observed in East-Asian ancestry (EAS) using PRS- CS compared to P+T for heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Notably, prediction accuracy is heterogeneous across endpoints, biobanks, and ancestries, especially for asthma which has known variation in disease prevalence across global populations. Overall, we provide lessons for PRS construction, evaluation, and interpretation using the GBMI and highlight the importance of best practices for PRS in the biobank-scale genomics era.
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 | 0.075 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".