Evaluating Approaches for Constructing Polygenic Risk Scores for Prostate Cancer in Men of African and European Ancestry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRS) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRS based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer risk variants from multi-ancestry GWAS and fine-mapping studies (PRS 269 ). GW-PRS models were trained using a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS 269 . Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California/Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI=0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI=0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer OR of 1.83 (95% CI=1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI=2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. However, compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS 269 had larger or similar AUCs (AUC=0.679, 95% CI=0.659-0.700 and AUC=0.845, 95% CI=0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer OR (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.87-2.26 and OR=2.21, 95% CI=2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation data. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the multi-ancestry PRS 269 constructed with fine-mapping.
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 | 0.034 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".