基于参考的标准化方法稳定多基因评分的小批量风险预测。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY
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":"基于参考的标准化方法稳定多基因评分的小批量风险预测。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

多基因评分(PGS)有望激励预防性行为改变。然而,目前尚无临床验证的标准化方法。在这里,我们展示了“基于参考”的标准化方法的有效性。该方法以一般人群中的PGS分布作为归一化和百分位数确定的参考;然而,它还没有得到证实。我们研究了对PGS计算的三个潜在影响:(1)参考人群的规模,(2)与不同基因分型平台相关的偏差,(3)参考群体中亲属关系的纳入。我们的研究结果表明,参考大小影响PGS百分位数的标准误差的自举估计,在第50百分位数附近达到峰值,在极端百分位数(第1或第100)处减弱。基因分型平台之间的差异,如不同的微阵列和全基因组测序,导致PGS的偏差(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reference-Based Standardization Approach Stabilizing Small Batch Risk Prediction via Polygenic Score

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信