Reference-Based Standardization Approach Stabilizing Small Batch Risk Prediction via Polygenic Score

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY Genetic Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1002/gepi.70002
Yoichi Sutoh, Tsuyoshi Hachiya, Yayoi Otsuka-Yamasaki, Tomoharu Tokutomi, Akiko Yoshida, Yuka Kotozaki, Shohei Komaki, Shiori Minabe, Hideki Ohmomo, Kozo Tanno, Akimune Fukushima, Makoto Sasaki, Atsushi Shimizu
{"title":"Reference-Based Standardization Approach Stabilizing Small Batch Risk Prediction via Polygenic Score","authors":"Yoichi Sutoh,&nbsp;Tsuyoshi Hachiya,&nbsp;Yayoi Otsuka-Yamasaki,&nbsp;Tomoharu Tokutomi,&nbsp;Akiko Yoshida,&nbsp;Yuka Kotozaki,&nbsp;Shohei Komaki,&nbsp;Shiori Minabe,&nbsp;Hideki Ohmomo,&nbsp;Kozo Tanno,&nbsp;Akimune Fukushima,&nbsp;Makoto Sasaki,&nbsp;Atsushi Shimizu","doi":"10.1002/gepi.70002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The polygenic score (PGS) holds promise for motivating preventive behavioral changes. However, no clinically validated standardization methodology currently exists. Here, we demonstrate the efficacy of a “reference-based” approach for standardization. This method uses the PGS distribution in the general population as a reference for normalization and percentile determination; however, it has not been validated. We investigated three potential influences on PGS computation: (1) the size of the reference population, (2) biases associated with different genotyping platforms, and (3) inclusion of kinship ties within the reference group. Our results indicate that the reference size affects the bootstrap estimate of standard error for PGS percentiles, peaking around the 50th percentile and diminishing at extreme percentiles (1st or 100th). Discrepancies between genotyping platforms, such as different microarrays and whole-genome sequencing, resulted in deviations in PGS (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05 in Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). However, these deviations were reduced to a nonsignificant level using shared genetic variants in the calculations when the ancestry of the samples and reference were matched. This approach recovered approximately 9.6% of the positive predictive value of PGS by naïve genotype. Our results provide fundamental insights for establishing clinical guidelines for implementing PGS to communicate reliable risks to individuals.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12710,"journal":{"name":"Genetic Epidemiology","volume":"49 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetic Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gepi.70002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The polygenic score (PGS) holds promise for motivating preventive behavioral changes. However, no clinically validated standardization methodology currently exists. Here, we demonstrate the efficacy of a “reference-based” approach for standardization. This method uses the PGS distribution in the general population as a reference for normalization and percentile determination; however, it has not been validated. We investigated three potential influences on PGS computation: (1) the size of the reference population, (2) biases associated with different genotyping platforms, and (3) inclusion of kinship ties within the reference group. Our results indicate that the reference size affects the bootstrap estimate of standard error for PGS percentiles, peaking around the 50th percentile and diminishing at extreme percentiles (1st or 100th). Discrepancies between genotyping platforms, such as different microarrays and whole-genome sequencing, resulted in deviations in PGS (p < 0.05 in Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). However, these deviations were reduced to a nonsignificant level using shared genetic variants in the calculations when the ancestry of the samples and reference were matched. This approach recovered approximately 9.6% of the positive predictive value of PGS by naïve genotype. Our results provide fundamental insights for establishing clinical guidelines for implementing PGS to communicate reliable risks to individuals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Genetic Epidemiology
Genetic Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetic Epidemiology is a peer-reviewed journal for discussion of research on the genetic causes of the distribution of human traits in families and populations. Emphasis is placed on the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors to human disease as revealed by genetic, epidemiological, and biologic investigations. Genetic Epidemiology primarily publishes papers in statistical genetics, a research field that is primarily concerned with development of statistical, bioinformatical, and computational models for analyzing genetic data. Incorporation of underlying biology and population genetics into conceptual models is favored. The Journal seeks original articles comprising either applied research or innovative statistical, mathematical, computational, or genomic methodologies that advance studies in genetic epidemiology. Other types of reports are encouraged, such as letters to the editor, topic reviews, and perspectives from other fields of research that will likely enrich the field of genetic epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Dimension Reduction Using Local Principal Components for Regression-Based Multi-SNP Analysis in 1000 Genomes and the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) Issue Information Sex-Specific Association Between Polymorphisms in Estrogen Receptor Alpha Gene (ESR1) and Depression: A Genome-Wide Association Study of All of Us and UK Biobank Data Reference-Based Standardization Approach Stabilizing Small Batch Risk Prediction via Polygenic Score Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1