Author Response: Risk factors affecting polygenic score performance across diverse cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apart from ancestry, personal or environmental covariates may contribute to differences in polygenic score (PGS) performance. We analyzed effects of covariate stratification and interaction on body mass index (BMI) PGS (PGSBMI) across four cohorts of European (N=491,111) and African (N=21,612) ancestry. Stratifying on binary covariates and quintiles for continuous covariates, 18/62 covariates had significant and replicable R2 differences among strata. Covariates with the largest differences included age, sex, blood lipids, physical activity, and alcohol consumption, with R2 being nearly double between best and worst performing quintiles for certain covariates. 28 covariates had significant PGSBMI-covariate interaction effects, modifying PGSBMI effects by nearly 20% per standard deviation change. We observed overlap with covariates that had significant R2 differences between strata and interaction effects – across all covariates, their main effects on BMI were correlated with maximum R2 differences and interaction effects (0.56 and 0.58, respectively), suggesting high-PGS-score individuals have highest R2 and PGS effect increases. Given significant and replicable evidence for context-specific PGSBMI performance and effects, we investigated ways to increase model performance taking into account non-linear effects. Machine learning models (neural networks) increased relative model R2 (mean 23%) across datasets. Finally, creating PGSBMI directly from GxAge GWAS effects increased relative R2 by 7.8%. These results demonstrate that certain covariates, especially those most associated with BMI, significantly affect both PGSBMI performance and effects across diverse cohorts and ancestries, and we provide avenues to improve model performance that consider these effects.
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 | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.143 | 0.041 |
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".