Polygenic and transcriptional risk scores identify chronic obstructive pulmonary disease subtypes in the COPDGene and ECLIPSE cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Genetic variants and gene expression predict risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but their effect on COPD heterogeneity is unclear. We aimed to define high-risk COPD subtypes using 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 maximising 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. Findings We examined two high-risk omics-defined groups in non-overlapping test sets (n = 1133 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 signalling processes compared to a low-risk (low PRS, low TRS) subgroup. "High activity" but not "severe risk" participants had greater prospective FEV 1 decline (COPDGene: −51 mL/year; ECLIPSE: −40 mL/year) and proteomic profiles were enriched in gene sets perturbed by treatment with 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Interpretation 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. Funding National Institutes of Health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".