Variability of polygenic prediction for body mass index in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polygenic prediction studies in continental Africans are scarce. Africa's genetic and environmental diversity pose a challenge that limits the generalizability of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for body mass index (BMI) within the continent. Studies to understand the factors that affect PRS variability within Africa are required. METHODS: Using the first multi-ancestry genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis for BMI involving continental Africans, we derived a multi-ancestry PRS and compared its performance to a European ancestry-specific PRS in continental Africans (AWI-Gen study) and a European cohort (Estonian Biobank). We then evaluated the factors affecting the performance of the PRS in Africans which included fine-mapping resolution, allele frequencies, linkage disequilibrium patterns, and PRS-environment interactions. RESULTS: Polygenic prediction of BMI in continental Africans is poor compared to that in European ancestry individuals. However, we show that the multi-ancestry PRS is more predictive than the European ancestry-specific PRS due to its improved fine-mapping resolution. We noted regional variation in polygenic prediction across Africa's East, South, and West regions, which was driven by a complex interplay of the PRS with environmental factors, such as physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the role of gene-environment interactions in PRS prediction variability in Africa. PRS methods that correct for these interactions, coupled with the increased representation of Africans in GWAS, may improve PRS prediction in Africa.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".