Development of risk prediction models for depression combining genetic and early life risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Both genetic and early life risk factors play important roles in the pathogenesis and progression of adult depression. However, the interplay between these risk factors and their added value to risk prediction models have not been fully elucidated. Methods: = 278,730 European ancestry individuals), we tested whether the polygenic risk score and early life risk factors were associated with each other and compared their associations with depression phenotypes. Finally, we conducted joint predictive modeling to combine this polygenic risk score with early life risk factors by stepwise regression, and assessed the model performance in identifying individuals at high risk of depression. Results: In the UK Biobank test dataset, the polygenic risk score for depression was moderately associated with multiple early life risk factors. For instance, a one standard deviation increase in the polygenic risk score was associated with 1.16-fold increased odds of frequent domestic violence (95% CI: 1.14-1.19) and 1.09-fold increased odds of not having access to medical care as a child (95% CI: 1.05-1.14). However, the polygenic risk score was more strongly associated with depression phenotypes than most early life risk factors. A joint predictive model integrating the polygenic risk score, early life risk factors, age and sex achieved an AUROC of 0.6766 for predicting strictly defined major depressive disorder, while a model without the polygenic risk score and a model without any early life risk factors had an AUROC of 0.6593 and 0.6318, respectively. Conclusion: We have developed a polygenic risk score to partly capture the genetic liability to depression. Although genetic and early life risk factors can be correlated, joint predictive models improved risk stratification despite limited improvement in magnitude, and may be explored as tools to better identify individuals at high risk of depression.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".