Stratifying lung adenocarcinoma risk with multi-ancestry polygenic risk scores in East Asian never-smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) in never-smokers is a major public health burden, especially among East Asian women. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are promising for risk stratification but are primarily developed in European-ancestry populations. We aimed to develop and validate single- and multi-ancestry PRSs for East Asian never-smokers to improve LUAD risk prediction. METHODS: PRSs were developed using genome-wide association study summary statistics from East Asian (8,002 cases; 20,782 controls) and European (2,058 cases; 5,575 controls) populations. Single-ancestry models included PRS-25, PRS-CT, and LDpred2; multi-ancestry models included LDpred2+PRS-EUR128, PRS-CSx, and CT-SLEB. Performance was evaluated in independent East Asian data from the Female Lung Cancer Consortium (FLCCA) and externally validated in the Nanjing Lung Cancer Cohort (NJLCC). We assessed predictive accuracy via AUC, with 10-year and (age 30-80) absolute risks estimates. RESULTS: The best multi-ancestry PRS, using East Asian and European data via CT-SLEB (clumping and thresholding, super learning, empirical Bayes), outperformed the best East Asian-only PRS (LDpred2; AUC = 0.629, 95% CI:0.618,0.641), achieving an AUC of 0.640 (95% CI : 0.629,0.653) and odds ratio of 1.71 (95% CI : 1.61,1.82) per SD increase. NJLCC Validation confirmed robust performance (AUC =0.649, 95% CI: 0.623, 0.676). The top 20% PRS group had a 3.92-fold higher LUAD risk than the bottom 20%. Further, the top 5% PRS group reached a 6.69% lifetime absolute risk. Notably, this group reached the average population 10-year LUAD risk at age 50 (0.42%) by age 41, nine years earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-ancestry PRS approaches enhance LUAD risk stratification in East Asian never-smokers, with consistent external validation, suggesting future clinical utility.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".