MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4357141: Polygenic score analyses in a large multinational HCM clinical cohort identifies effects on disease penetrance and severity

2025· article· en· W4415799561 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paloma Jordà, Alex Lipov, Juan R. Gimeno, Isabel Castillo, Roddy Walsh, Edwin Poel, Poeya Haydarlou, Annette F. Baas, Michelle Michels, Imke Christiaans, N.A.M. Paterson, Arjan C. Houweling, Maxime Tremblay‐Gravel, Patrick Garceau, Habib Khan, Thomas M. Roston, Christian Steinberg, Iacopo Olivotto, Roberto Barriales‐Villa, Sean J. Jurgens, Julia Cadrin‐Tourigny, Michael W.T. Tanck, Ahmad S. Amin, Arnon Adler, Rafik Tadros, Connie R. Bezzina

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenetranceHypertrophic cardiomyopathyCohortDiseaseCardiomyopathyProportional hazards modelHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Disease expressivity in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) varies widely, ranging from unaffected genetically predisposed individuals to life-threatening complications. Polygenic scores (PGS) were shown to predict disease penetrance of HCM-causing rare genetic variants (HCMrv) and HCM-related outcomes in large biobanks. However, the utility of PGS in clinical cohorts remains unclear. Research Questions: Can PGS predict disease penetrance in carriers of HCMrv in the clinical setting? Is PGS associated with disease severity and complications in individuals with HCM? Methods: We studied a well-characterized clinical HCM cohort from Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, comprising 6,111 individuals affected by HCM and/or carrying a HCMrv. We used SBayesRC to derive a novel PGS for HCM from the largest published genome-wide association study. Standardized ancestry-adjusted PGS were calculated for all individuals and tested for association with HCM penetrance, maximal left ventricular wall thickness (MLVWT) and major adverse clinical events (MACE) using logistic, linear and Cox regression models, respectively, with adjustment for sex, rare variant status, site, and other covariates as relevant. MACE were defined as major ventricular arrhythmic or heart failure event, stroke, septal reduction therapy or all-cause mortality. Results: PGS was tested for association with HCM in the subset of 1,667 relatives carrying a HCMrv (age at last follow-up 47 ± 19, 49% female), of which 57% meet diagnostic criteria for HCM. PGS was associated with a diagnosis of HCM (Odds ratio 1.6 per standard deviation [SD] increase in PGS; 95% CI: 1.4-1.8). Male sex and hypertension also independently increased penetrance by 3-fold and 2-fold, respectively. HCM-penetrance increased with increasing PGS, in the entire set as well as in carriers of MYH7 pathogenic variants, MYBPC3 truncating variants, or intermediate effect variants (Figure). In 4,949 affected individuals (age at diagnosis 48 ± 17, 33% female, 49% carrying HCMrv), PGS was associated with disease severity. Each SD increase in PGS was associated with a 0.5 mm increase in MLVWT (95% CI: 0.3-0.6), and a 12% increase in lifetime risk of MACE (Hazard ratio 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.18). Conclusions: PGS assessment may enhance risk stratification and personalize monitoring strategies—guiding the timing, frequency, and scope of clinical evaluations in both genetically predisposed individuals and patients with manifest HCM.

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)0.003
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→