An interpretable Alzheimer’s disease oligogenic risk score informed by neuroimaging biomarkers improves risk prediction and stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Stratification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients into risk subgroups using Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) presents novel opportunities for the development of clinical trials and disease-modifying therapies. However, the heterogeneous nature of AD continues to pose significant challenges for the clinical broadscale use of PRS. PRS remains unfit in demonstrating sufficient accuracy in risk prediction, particularly for individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and in allowing feasible interpretation of specific genes or SNPs contributing to disease risk. We propose adORS, a novel oligogenic risk score for AD, to better predict risk of disease by using an optimized list of relevant genetic risk factors. Methods: = 1,545), we selected 20 genes that exhibited the strongest correlations with FDG-PET and AV45-PET, recognized neuroimaging biomarkers that detect functional brain changes in AD. This subset of genes was incorporated into adORS to assess, in comparison to PRS, the prediction accuracy of CN vs. AD classification and MCI conversion prediction, risk stratification of the ADNI cohort, and interpretability of the genetic information included in the scores. Results: adORS improved AUC scores over PRS in both CN vs. AD classification and MCI conversion prediction. The oligogenic model also refined risk-based stratification, even without the assistance of APOE, thus reflecting the true prevalence rate of the ADNI cohort compared to PRS. Interpretation analysis shows that genes included in adORS, such as ATF6, EFCAB11, ING5, SIK3, and CD46, have been observed in similar neurodegenerative disorders and/or are supported by AD-related literature. Discussion: Compared to conventional PRS, adORS may prove to be a more appropriate choice of differentiating patients into high or low genetic risk of AD in clinical studies or settings. Additionally, the ability to interpret specific genetic information allows the focus to be shifted from general relative risk based on a given population to the information that adORS can provide for a single individual, thus permitting the possibility of personalized treatments for AD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".