Evaluation of Sex-Stratified Polygenic Risk Scores for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Glycemic Traits in the Framingham Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGRUOUND: Diabetes is a multifactorial disease with significant genetic predisposition. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed to estimate an individual's genetic risk of a disease. Traditionally, PRS utilize sex-combined genome-wide association studies (GWAS) due to the limited availability of sex-stratified summary statistics. This study explores sex-dimorphic genetic effects and evaluates the potential benefits of incorporating sex-stratified effects in PRS for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and glycemic traits by comparing PRS performance derived from sex-combined versus sex-stratified GWAS. METHODS: We performed a sex-heterogeneity test across sex-specific GWAS and identified nine signals with sex-dimorphic effects for T2DM. PRS[sex-combined] and PRS[sex-stratified] were developed using sex-combined and sex-stratified GWAS results for T2DM (41,444 cases and 354,539 controls), fasting glucose (n=120,595) and fasting insulin (n=98,210). We evaluated these PRS models in 8,379 participants (1,303 cases and 7,076 controls) from the Framingham Heart Study not included in the PRS derivation. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that sex-combined PRS currently offer better predictive performance for T2DM and glycemic traits. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the need for larger sex-stratified studies and the optimization of sex-stratified risk models for clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".