Insights into ancestral diversity in Parkinson’s disease risk: a comparative assessment of polygenic risk scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk prediction models play a crucial role in advancing healthcare by enabling early detection and supporting personalized medicine. Nonetheless, polygenic risk scores (PRS) for Parkinson's disease (PD) have not been extensively studied across diverse populations, contributing to health disparities. In this study, we constructed 105 PRS using individual-level data from seven ancestries and compared two different models. Model 1 was based on the cumulative effect of 90 known European PD risk variants, weighted by summary statistics from four independent ancestries (European, East Asian, Latino/Admixed American, and African/Admixed). Model 2 leveraged multi-ancestry summary statistics using a p-value thresholding approach to improve prediction across diverse populations. Our findings provide a comprehensive assessment of PRS performance across ancestries and highlight the limitations of a "one-size-fits-all" approach to genetic risk prediction. We observed variability in predictive performance between models, underscoring the need for larger sample sizes and ancestry-specific approaches to enhance accuracy. These results establish a foundation for future research aimed at improving generalizability in genetic risk prediction for PD.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".