Fast and Accurate Bayesian Polygenic Risk Modeling with Variational Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The recent proliferation of large scale genome-wide association studies (GWASs) has motivated the development of statistical methods for phenotype prediction using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data. These polygenic risk score (PRS) methods formulate the task of polygenic prediction in terms of a multiple linear regression framework, where the goal is to infer the joint effect sizes of all genetic variants on the trait. Among the subset of PRS methods that operate on GWAS summary statistics, sparse Bayesian methods have shown competitive predictive ability. However, most existing Bayesian approaches employ Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms for posterior inference, which are computationally inefficient and do not scale favorably with the number of SNPs included in the analysis. Here, we introduce Variational Inference of Polygenic Risk Scores ( VIPRS ), a Bayesian summary statistics-based PRS method that utilizes Variational Inference (VI) techniques to efficiently approximate the posterior distribution for the effect sizes. Our experiments with genome-wide simulations and real phenotypes from the UK Biobank (UKB) dataset demonstrated that variational approximations to the posterior are competitively accurate and highly efficient. When compared to state-of-the-art PRS methods, VIPRS consistently achieves the best or second best predictive accuracy in our analyses of 36 simulation configurations as well as 12 real phenotypes measured among the UKB participants of “White British” background. This performance advantage was higher among individuals from other ethnic groups, with an increase in R 2 of up to 1.7-fold among participants of Nigerian ancestry for Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Furthermore, given its computational efficiency, we applied VIPRS to a dataset of up to 10 million genetic markers, an order of magnitude greater than the standard HapMap3 subset used to train existing PRS methods. Modeling this expanded set of variants conferred significant improvements in prediction accuracy for a number of highly polygenic traits, such as standing height.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".