Machine Learning Models of Polygenic Risk for Enhanced Prediction of Alzheimer Disease Endophenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: and other GWAS hits. However, existing PRS approaches, based on traditional regression models, explain only modest variation in AD dementia risk and AD-related endophenotypes. We hypothesized that machine learning (ML) models of polygenic risk (ML-PRS) could outperform standard regression-based PRS methods and therefore have the potential for greater clinical utility. Methods: We analyzed combined data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (n = 1,791) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n = 864). An AD PRS was computed for each participant using the top common SVs obtained from a large AD dementia GWAS. In parallel, ML models were trained using those SV genotypes, with amyloid PET burden as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included amyloid PET positivity and clinical diagnosis (cognitively unimpaired vs impaired). We compared performance between ML-PRS and standard PRS across 100 training sessions with different data splits. In each session, data were split into 80% training and 20% testing, and then five-fold cross-validation was used within the training set to ensure the best model was produced for testing. We also applied permutation importance techniques to assess which genetic factors contributed most to outcome prediction. Results: = 0.24 in test set) in explaining variation in amyloid PET burden. Among ML approaches, methods accounting for nonlinear genetic influences were superior to linear methods. ML-PRS models were also more accurate when predicting amyloid PET positivity (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.80 vs AUC = 0.63) and the presence of cognitive impairment (AUC = 0.75 vs AUC = 0.54) compared with the standard PRS. Discussion: We found that ML-PRS approaches improved upon standard PRS for prediction of AD endophenotypes, partly related to improved accounting for nonlinear effects of genetic susceptibility alleles. Further adaptations of the ML-PRS framework could help to close the gap of remaining unexplained heritability for AD and therefore facilitate more accurate presymptomatic and early-stage risk stratification for clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".