Evaluation of polygenic scoring methods in five biobanks reveals greater variability between biobanks than between methods and highlights benefits of ensemble learning

Author:

Monti RemoORCID,Eick Lisa,Hudjashov GeorgiORCID,Läll Kristi,Kanoni StavroulaORCID,Wolford Brooke N.ORCID,Wingfield BenjaminORCID,Pain OliverORCID,Wharrie SophieORCID,Jermy BradleyORCID,McMahon AoifeORCID,Hartonen TuomoORCID,Heyne HenrikeORCID,Mars NinaORCID,Hveem Kristian,Inouye MichaelORCID,van Heel David A.ORCID,Mägi ReedikORCID,Marttinen PekkaORCID,Ripatti SamuliORCID,Ganna AndreaORCID,Lippert ChristophORCID,

Abstract

AbstractMethods to estimate polygenic scores (PGS) from genome-wide association studies are increasingly utilized. However, independent method evaluation is lacking, and method comparisons are often limited. Here, we evaluate polygenic scores derived using seven methods in five biobank studies (totaling about 1.2 million participants) across 16 diseases and quantitative traits, building on a reference-standardized framework. We conducted meta-analyses to quantify the effects of method choice, hyperparameter tuning, method ensembling and target biobank on PGS performance. We found that no single method consistently outperformed all others. PGS effect sizes were more variable between biobanks than between methods within biobanks when methods were well-tuned. Differences between methods were largest for the two investigated autoimmune diseases, seropositive rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes. For most methods, cross-validation was more reliable for tuning hyperparameters than automatic tuning (without the use of target data). For a given target phenotype, elastic net models combining PGS across methods (ensemble PGS) tuned in the UK Biobank provided consistent, high, and cross-biobank transferable performance, increasing PGS effect sizes (β-coefficients) by a median of 5.0% relative to LDpred2 and MegaPRS (the two best performing single methods when tuned with cross-validation). Our interactively browsable online-results (https://methodscomparison.intervenegeneticscores.org/) and open-source workflow prspipe (https://github.com/intervene-EU-H2020/prspipe) provide a rich resource and reference for the analysis of polygenic scoring methods across biobanks.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3