Polygenic and transcriptional risk scores identify chronic obstructive pulmonary disease subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Rationale Genetic variants and gene expression predict risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but their effect on COPD heterogeneity is unclear. Objectives Define high-risk COPD subtypes using both genetics (polygenic risk score, PRS) and blood gene expression (transcriptional risk score, TRS) and assess differences in clinical and molecular characteristics. Methods We defined high-risk groups based on PRS and TRS quantiles by maximizing differences in protein biomarkers in a COPDGene training set and identified these groups in COPDGene and ECLIPSE test sets. We tested multivariable associations of subgroups with clinical outcomes and compared protein-protein interaction networks and drug repurposing analyses between high-risk groups. Measurements and Main Results We examined two high-risk omics-defined groups in non-overlapping test sets (n=1,133 NHW COPDGene, n=299 African American (AA) COPDGene, n=468 ECLIPSE). We defined “High activity” (low PRS/high TRS) and “severe risk” (high PRS/high TRS) subgroups. Participants in both subgroups had lower body-mass index (BMI), lower lung function, and alterations in metabolic, growth, and immune signaling processes compared to a low-risk (low PRS, low TRS) reference subgroup. “High activity” but not “severe risk” participants had greater prospective FEV 1 decline (COPDGene: -51 mL/year; ECLIPSE: - 40 mL/year) and their proteomic profiles were enriched in gene sets perturbed by treatment with 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Conclusions Concomitant use of polygenic and transcriptional risk scores identified clinical and molecular heterogeneity amongst high-risk individuals. Proteomic and drug repurposing analysis identified subtype-specific enrichment for therapies and suggest prior drug repurposing failures may be explained by patient selection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".