<i>PNL</i>: a software to build polygenic risk scores using a super learner approach based on PairNet, a Convolutional Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for early disease diagnosis and personalized treatment, but their overall discriminative power remains limited for many diseases in the general population. As a result, numerous novel PRS modeling techniques have been developed to improve predictive performance, but determining the most effective method for a specific application remains uncertain until tested. Hence, we introduce a novel, versatile tool for building an optimized PRS model by integrating candidate models from multiple existing PRS building methods that use target population data and/or incorporating information from other populations through a trans-ethnic approach. Our tool, PNL is based on PairNet algorithm, a Convolutional Neural Network with low computation complexity through simple paring operation. In the case studies for asthma, type 2 diabetes, and vertigo, the optimal PRS model generated with PNL using only Taiwan biobank (TWB) data achieved Area Under the Curves (AUCs) that matched or improved the best results using other methods individually. Incorporating the UK Biobank data (UKBB) data further improved performance of PNL for asthma and type 2 diabetes. For vertigo, unlike the other diseases, individual method analysis showed that UKBB data alone generally produced lower AUCs compared to TWB data alone. As a result, incorporating UKBB data did not improve AUC with PNL, suggesting that increasing the number of candidate models does not necessarily result in higher AUC values, alleviating concerns about overfitting. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The python code for PairNet algorithm incorporated in PNL is freely available on: https://github.com/FannLab/pairnet. An archived, citable version is stored on: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14838227.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.011 |
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".