MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362733473 · doi:10.1161/circgen.122.003834

Current State and Future of Polygenic Risk Scores in Cardiometabolic Disease: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4362733473 on OpenAlex
Jobanjit Phulka, Mishal Ashraf, Beenu K. Bajwa, Guillaume Paré, Zachary Laksman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Genomic and Precision Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstitutePopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseFramingham Risk ScoreMEDLINEMeta-analysisCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A polygenic risk score (PRS) is derived from a genome-wide association study and represents an aggregate of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms that provide a baseline estimate of an individual's genetic risk for a specific disease or trait at birth. However, it remains unclear how PRSs can be used in clinical practice. We provide an overview of the PRSs related to cardiometabolic disease and discuss the evidence supporting their clinical applications and limitations. The Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews protocol was used to conduct a scoping review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Across the 4863 studies screened, 82 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common PRS related to coronary artery disease, followed by hypertension and cerebrovascular disease. Limited ancestral diversity was observed in the study sample populations. Most studies included only individuals of European ancestry. The predictive performance of most PRSs was similar to or superior to traditional risk factors. More than half of the included studies reported an integrated risk model combining a derived PRS and clinical risk tools such as the Framingham Risk Score and Pooled Cohort Equations. The inclusion of a PRS into a clinical risk model tended to improve predictive accuracy consistently. This scoping review is the first of its kind and reports strong evidence for the clinical utility of PRSs in coronary artery disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and atrial fibrillation. However, most PRSs are generated in cohorts of European ancestry, which likely contributes to a lack of PRS transferability across different ancestral groups. Future prospective studies should focus on further establishing the clinical utility of PRSs and ensuring diversity is incorporated into genome-wide association study cohorts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it