A Genomic Risk Score Identifies Individuals at High Risk for Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has an estimated heritability of 29%. We developed a genomic risk score for ICH and determined its predictive power in comparison to standard clinical risk factors. Methods: We combined genome-wide association data from individuals of European ancestry for ICH and related traits in a meta-genomic risk score ([metaGRS]; 2.6 million variants). We tested associations with ICH and its predictive performance in addition to clinical risk factors in a held-out validation dataset (842 cases and 796 controls). We tested associations with risk of incident ICH in the population-based UK Biobank cohort (486 784 individuals, 1526 events, median follow-up 11.3 years). Results: One SD increment in the metaGRS was significantly associated with 31% higher odds for ICH (95% CI, 1.16–1.48) in age-, sex- and clinical risk factor-adjusted models. The metaGRS identified individuals with almost 5-fold higher odds for ICH in the top score percentile (odds ratio, 4.83 [95% CI, 1.56–21.2]). Predictive models for ICH incorporating the metaGRS in addition to clinical predictors showed superior performance compared to the clinical risk factors alone (c-index, 0.695 versus 0.686). The metaGRS showed similar associations for lobar and nonlobar ICH, independent of the known APOE risk locus for lobar ICH. In the UK Biobank, the metaGRS was associated with higher risk of incident ICH (hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.09–1.21]). The associations were significant within both a relatively high-risk population of antithrombotic medications users, as well as among a relatively low-risk population with a good control of vascular risk factors and no use of anticoagulants. Conclusions: We developed and validated a genomic risk score that predicts lifetime risk of ICH beyond established clinical risk factors among individuals of European ancestry. Whether implementation of the score in risk prognostication models for high-risk populations, such as patients under antithrombotic treatment, could improve clinical decision making should be explored in future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".