Proteome-wide Mendelian randomization in global biobank meta-analysis reveals multi-ancestry drug targets for common diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteome-wide Mendelian randomization (MR) shows value in prioritizing drug targets in Europeans but with limited evidence in other ancestries. Here, we present a multi-ancestry proteome-wide MR analysis based on cross-population data from the Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative (GBMI). We estimated the putative causal effects of 1,545 proteins on eight diseases in African (32,658) and European (1,219,993) ancestries and identified 45 and 7 protein-disease pairs with MR and genetic colocalization evidence in the two ancestries, respectively. A multi-ancestry MR comparison identified two protein-disease pairs with MR evidence in both ancestries and seven pairs with specific effects in the two ancestries separately. Integrating these MR signals with clinical trial evidence, we prioritized 16 pairs for investigation in future drug trials. Our results highlight the value of proteome-wide MR in informing the generalizability of drug targets for disease prevention across ancestries and illustrate the value of meta-analysis of biobanks in drug development.
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 | 0.036 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".