Evaluating the Classification Accuracy of Expression Quantitative Trait Loci Calculated Polygenic Risk Scores in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) hold promise for the early identification of those at risk from neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's Disease (AD), allowing for intervention to occur prior to neuronal damage. The current selection of informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to generate the risk scores is based on the modelling of large genome-wide association data using significance thresholds. However, the biological relevance of these SNPs is largely unknown. This study, in contrast, aims to identify SNPs with biological relevance to AD and then assess them for their ability to accurately classify cases and controls. Samples selected from the Brains for Dementia Research (BDR) were used to produce gene expression data to identify potential expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) relevant to AD. These SNPs were then incorporated into a PRS model to classify AD and controls in the full BDR cohort. Models derived from these eQTLs demonstrate modest classification potential with an accuracy between 61% and 67%. Although the model accuracy is not as high as some values in the literature based on significance thresholds from genome-wide association studies, these models may reflect a more biologically relevant model, which may provide novel targets for therapeutic intervention.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".