The current state and future of cardiometabolic polygenic risk scores in European and non-European population cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background A polygenic risk score (PRS) is derived from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and represents an aggregate of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that provide a baseline estimate of an individual’s genetic risk for a specific disease or trait at birth. Cardiometabolic disease represents a set of disease processes that historically have disproportionally affected underrepresented racial and minority groups. Furthermore, these groups represent a population generally not well captured by traditional risk scores compared to European cohorts. Since the first GWAS studying myocardial infarction was published, PRSs have increasingly been seen as a promising tool to improve risk stratification of non-European populations. However, how PRSs can be best used in clinical practice remains unclear. Purpose To provide an overview of the PRSs related to cardiometabolic disease, analyze the ancestral diversity of GWAS cohorts, and discuss the evidence supporting their clinical applications. Methods 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. English studies that published a PRS related to atrial fibrillation (AF), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), coronary artery disease (CAD), dyslipidemia, heart failure, heritable cardiomyopathy, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes were reviewed. Results Across the 4,863 studies screened, 82 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common PRS related to CAD, followed by hypertension and CVD. Limited ancestral diversity was observed as most studies (56) included only individuals of European ancestry. A smaller proportion of studies (16) published PRSs derived in multi-ancestry cohorts. Only ten studies published a PRS derived solely from a sample population of non-European ancestry (Chinese, East Asian, Japanese, and Korean). The predictive performance of most PRSs was similar to or superior to traditional risk factors. More than half of the included studies (42) reported an integrated risk model combining a PRS with traditional risk factors or a clinical risk tool (FRS, PCE, CHADS2). The integrated risk model consistently improved predictive accuracy, but few studies investigated the performance in a non-European population. Conclusion In conclusion, this scoping review is the first of its kind and reports strong evidence for the clinical use of PRSs in AF, CAD, CVD, and hypertension. However, most PRSs are derived in cohorts of European ancestry, which contributes to a lack of PRS transferability across different ancestral groups, likely exacerbating health inequities. Future prospective studies should focus on further establishing the clinical utility of PRSs. Additionally, diversity in future GWAS cohorts is essential to ensure that PRSs reflect the multi-ancestry society at large.
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 | 0.077 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".