Polygenic hazard score models for the prediction of Alzheimer's free survival using the lasso for Cox's proportional hazards model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prediction of the susceptibility of an individual to a certain disease is an important and timely research area. An established technique is to estimate the risk of an individual with the help of an integrated risk model, that is, a polygenic risk score with added epidemiological covariates. However, integrated risk models do not capture any time dependence, and may provide a point estimate of the relative risk with respect to a reference population. The aim of this work is twofold. First, we explore and advocate the idea of predicting the time-dependent hazard and survival (defined as disease-free time) of an individual for the onset of a disease. This provides a practitioner with a much more differentiated view of absolute survival as a function of time. Second, to compute the time-dependent risk of an individual, we use published methodology to fit a Cox's proportional hazard model to data from a genetic SNP study of time to Alzheimer's disease (AD) onset, using the lasso to incorporate further epidemiological variables such as sex, APOE (apolipoprotein E, a genetic risk factor for AD) status, 10 leading principal components, and selected genomic loci. We apply the lasso for Cox's proportional hazards to a data set of 6792 AD patients (composed of 4102 cases and 2690 controls) and 87 covariates. We demonstrate that fitting a lasso model for Cox's proportional hazards allows one to obtain more accurate survival curves than with state-of-the-art (likelihood-based) methods. Moreover, the methodology allows one to obtain personalized survival curves for a patient, thus giving a much more differentiated view of the expected progression of a disease than the view offered by integrated risk models. The runtime to compute personalized survival curves is under a minute for the entire data set of AD patients, thus enabling it to handle datasets with 60,000-100,000 subjects in less than 1 h.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".