Developing and validating a comprehensive polygenic risk score to enhance keratoconus risk prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive polygenic risk score (PRS) for keratoconus, enhancing the predictive accuracy for identifying individuals at increased risk, which is crucial for preventing keratoconus-associated visual impairment such as post-Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) ectasia. METHODS: We applied a multi-trait analysis approach (MTAG) to genome-wide association study data on keratoconus and quantitative keratoconus-related traits and used this to construct PRS models for keratoconus risk using several PRS methodologies. We evaluated the predictive performance of the PRSs in two biobanks: Estonian Biobank (EstBB; 375 keratoconus cases and 17 902 controls) and UK Biobank (UKB: 34 keratoconus cases and 1000 controls). Scores were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) and odds ratios (ORs) for various PRS models. RESULTS: The PRS models demonstrated significant predictive capabilities in EstBB, with the SBayesRC model achieving the highest OR of 2.28 per standard deviation increase in PRS, with a model containing age, sex and PRS showing good predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.72). In UKB, we found that adding the best-performing PRS to a model containing corneal measurements increased the AUC from 0.84 to 0.88 (P = 0.012 for difference), with an OR of 4.26 per standard deviation increase in the PRS. These models showed improved predictive capability compared to previous keratoconus PRS. CONCLUSION: The PRS models enhanced prediction of keratoconus risk, even with corneal measurements, showing potential for clinical use to identify individuals at high risk of keratoconus, and potentially help reduce the risk of post-LASIK ectasia.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".