Polygenic prediction of body mass index and obesity through the life course and across ancestries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic scores (PGSs) for body mass index (BMI) may guide early prevention and targeted treatment of obesity. Using genetic data from up to 5.1 million people (4.6% African ancestry, 14.4% American ancestry, 8.4% East Asian ancestry, 71.1% European ancestry and 1.5% South Asian ancestry) from the GIANT consortium and 23andMe, Inc., we developed ancestry-specific and multi-ancestry PGSs. The multi-ancestry score explained 17.6% of BMI variation among UK Biobank participants of European ancestry. For other populations, this ranged from 16% in East Asian-Americans to 2.2% in rural Ugandans. In the ALSPAC study, children with higher PGSs showed accelerated BMI gain from age 2.5 years to adolescence, with earlier adiposity rebound. Adding the PGS to predictors available at birth nearly doubled explained variance for BMI from age 5 onward (for example, from 11% to 21% at age 8). Up to age 5, adding the PGS to early-life BMI improved prediction of BMI at age 18 (for example, from 22% to 35% at age 5). Higher PGSs were associated with greater adult weight gain. In intensive lifestyle intervention trials, individuals with higher PGSs lost modestly more weight in the first year (0.55 kg per s.d.) but were more likely to regain it. Overall, these data show that PGSs have the potential to improve obesity prediction, particularly when implemented early in life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".