Expression based polygenic scores - A gene network perspective to capture individual differences in biological processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorporating functional aspects into polygenic scores may accelerate early diagnosis and the discovery of therapeutic targets. Yet, existing polygenic scores summarize information from genome wide statistical associations between SNPs and phenotypes. We developed the novel biologically informed, expression-based polygenic scores (ePRS or ePGS). The method characterizes tissue specific gene co-expression networks from genome-wide RNA sequencing data and incorporates this information into polygenic scores. Performance and characteristics of the ePGS were compared to traditional polygenic risk score (PRS). We observed that ePGS differs from PRS for aggregating information on; i. the relation between different genes (co-expression); ii. the levels of tissue-specific gene expression; iii. the genetic variation of the target sample; iv. the tissue-specific effect size of the association between genotyping and gene expression; v. the portability across different ancestries. Variations in the ePGS represent individual variations in the expression of a tissue-specific gene co-expression network, and this methodology may profoundly influence the way we study human disease biology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".