Genetic determinants of polygenic prediction accuracy within a population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic risk prediction is on the emerging path toward personalized medicine. However, the accuracy of polygenic prediction varies strongly in different individuals. Based on up to 352,277 European ancestry participants in the UK Biobank, we constructed polygenic risk scores for 15 physiological and biochemical quantitative traits. We identified a total of 185 polygenic prediction variability quantitative trait loci for 11 traits by Levene's test among 254,376 unrelated individuals. We validated the effects of prediction variability quantitative trait loci using an independent test set of 58,927 individuals. For instance, a score aggregating 51 prediction variability quantitative trait locus variants for triglycerides had the strongest Spearman correlation of 0.185 (P-value <1.0 × 10-300) with the squared prediction errors. We found a strong enrichment of complex genetic effects conferred by prediction variability quantitative trait loci compared to risk loci identified in genome-wide association studies, including 89 prediction variability quantitative trait loci exhibiting dominance effects. Incorporation of dominance effects into polygenic risk scores significantly improved polygenic prediction for triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, vitamin D, and platelet. In conclusion, we have discovered and profiled genetic determinants of polygenic prediction variability for 11 quantitative biomarkers. These findings may assist interpretation of genomic risk prediction in various contexts and encourage novel approaches for constructing polygenic risk scores with complex genetic effects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".