Imputation Server PGS: an automated approach to calculate polygenic risk scores on imputation servers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic scores (PGS) enable the prediction of genetic predisposition for a wide range of traits and diseases by calculating the weighted sum of allele dosages for genetic variants associated with the trait or disease in question. Present approaches for calculating PGS from genotypes are often inefficient and labor-intensive, limiting transferability into clinical applications. Here, we present 'Imputation Server PGS', an extension of the Michigan Imputation Server designed to automate a standardized calculation of polygenic scores based on imputed genotypes. This extends the widely used Michigan Imputation Server with new functionality, bringing the simplicity and efficiency of modern imputation to the PGS field. The service currently supports over 4489 published polygenic scores from publicly available repositories and provides extensive quality control, including ancestry estimation to report population stratification. An interactive report empowers users to screen and compare thousands of scores in a fast and intuitive way. Imputation Server PGS provides a user-friendly web service, facilitating the application of polygenic scores to a wide range of genetic studies and is freely available at https://imputationserver.sph.umich.edu.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.039 |
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".