Comparison of phenomic profiles in the <i>All of Us</i> Research Program against the US general population and the UK Biobank
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Knowledge gained from cohort studies has dramatically advanced both public and precision health. The All of Us Research Program seeks to enroll 1 million diverse participants who share multiple sources of data, providing unique opportunities for research. It is important to understand the phenomic profiles of its participants to conduct research in this cohort. OBJECTIVES: More than 280 000 participants have shared their electronic health records (EHRs) in the All of Us Research Program. We aim to understand the phenomic profiles of this cohort through comparisons with those in the US general population and a well-established nation-wide cohort, UK Biobank, and to test whether association results of selected commonly studied diseases in the All of Us cohort were comparable to those in UK Biobank. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included participants with EHRs in All of Us and participants with health records from UK Biobank. The estimates of prevalence of diseases in the US general population were obtained from the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) study. We conducted phenome-wide association studies (PheWAS) of 9 commonly studied diseases in both cohorts. RESULTS: This study included 287 012 participants from the All of Us EHR cohort and 502 477 participants from the UK Biobank. A total of 314 diseases curated by the GBD were evaluated in All of Us, 80.9% (N = 254) of which were more common in All of Us than in the US general population [prevalence ratio (PR) >1.1, P < 2 × 10-5]. Among 2515 diseases and phenotypes evaluated in both All of Us and UK Biobank, 85.6% (N = 2152) were more common in All of Us (PR >1.1, P < 2 × 10-5). The Pearson correlation coefficients of effect sizes from PheWAS between All of Us and UK Biobank were 0.61, 0.50, 0.60, 0.57, 0.40, 0.53, 0.46, 0.47, and 0.24 for ischemic heart diseases, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, colorectal cancer, lower back pain, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and cystic fibrosis, respectively. DISCUSSION: Despite the differences in prevalence of diseases in All of Us compared to the US general population or the UK Biobank, our study supports that All of Us can facilitate rapid investigation of a broad range of diseases. CONCLUSION: Most diseases were more common in All of Us than in the general US population or the UK Biobank. Results of disease-disease association tests from All of Us are comparable to those estimated in another well-studied national cohort.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it