MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407095446 · doi:10.1101/2025.01.31.25321395

Polygenic scores for disease risk are not associated with clinical outcomes in Parkinson’s disease

2025· preprint· en· W4407095446 on OpenAlexaff
Manuela Tan, Hirotaka Iwaki, Sara Bandrés‐Ciga, Yuri L. Sosero, Maryam Shoai, Kathrin Brockmann, Roy N. Alcalay, Jodi Maple‐Grødem, Guido Alves, Ole‐Bjørn Tysnes, Peggy Auinger, Shirley Eberly, Peter Heutink, David K. Simon, Karl Kieburtz, John Hardy, Caroline H. Williams‐Gray, Donald G. Grosset, Jean-Christophe Corvol, Ziv Gan‐Or, Mathias Toft, Lasse Pihlstrøm

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreHelse Sør-Øst RHFServierParkinson's UKNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilSanofiMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsDiseasePolygenic risk scoreParkinson's diseaseMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) in Parkinson's disease (PD) are associated with disease risk. Recently, pathway-specific PRS have been created to take advantage of annotations inking variants to biological pathways or cell types. Here, we investigated 8 biological pathways or regions of open chromatin using pathway-specific PRS: alpha-synuclein pathway, adaptive immunity, innate immunity, lysosomal pathway1, endocytic membrane-trafficking pathway, mitochondrial pathway, microglial open chromatin single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and monocyte open chromatin SNPs. We analysed 7,402 PD patients across 18 'in-person' PD cohorts, and 6,717 patients from the online Fox Insight study. We did not find any significant associations between the 8 pathway-specific PRSs and 8 clinical outcomes in PD. Though this may be due to a lack of statistical power and limited sample size, it may also suggest that the genetic architecture of sporadic PD risk is different from the genetics of PD progression and clinical outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→