Global Biobank analyses provide lessons for developing polygenic risk scores across diverse cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been widely explored in precision medicine. However, few studies have thoroughly investigated their best practices in global populations across different diseases. We here utilized data from Global Biobank Meta-analysis Initiative (GBMI) to explore methodological considerations and PRS performance in 9 different biobanks for 14 disease endpoints. Specifically, we constructed PRSs using pruning and thresholding (P + T) and PRS-continuous shrinkage (CS). For both methods, using a European-based linkage disequilibrium (LD) reference panel resulted in comparable or higher prediction accuracy compared with several other non-European-based panels. PRS-CS overall outperformed the classic P + T method, especially for endpoints with higher SNP-based heritability. Notably, prediction accuracy is heterogeneous across endpoints, biobanks, and ancestries, especially for asthma, which has known variation in disease prevalence across populations. Overall, we provide lessons for PRS construction, evaluation, and interpretation using GBMI resources 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 | 0.099 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".