@article {9586, title = {Machine learning models for blood pressure phenotypes combining multiple polygenic risk scores.}, journal = {medRxiv}, year = {2023}, month = {2023 Dec 14}, abstract = {

We construct non-linear machine learning (ML) prediction models for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) using demographic and clinical variables and polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We developed a two-model ensemble, consisting of a baseline model, where prediction is based on demographic and clinical variables only, and a genetic model, where we also include PRSs. We evaluate the use of a linear versus a non-linear model at both the baseline and the genetic model levels and assess the improvement in performance when incorporating multiple PRSs. We report the ensemble model{\textquoteright}s performance as percentage variance explained (PVE) on a held-out test dataset. A non-linear baseline model improved the PVEs from 28.1\% to 30.1\% (SBP) and 14.3\% to 17.4\% (DBP) compared with a linear baseline model. Including seven PRSs in the genetic model computed based on the largest available GWAS of SBP/DBP improved the genetic model PVE from 4.8\% to 5.1\% (SBP) and 4.7\% to 5\% (DBP) compared to using a single PRS. Adding additional 14 PRSs computed based on two independent GWASs further increased the genetic model PVE to 6.3\% (SBP) and 5.7\% (DBP). PVE differed across self-reported race/ethnicity groups, with primarily all non-White groups benefitting from the inclusion of additional PRSs.

}, doi = {10.1101/2023.12.13.23299909}, author = {Hrytsenko, Yana and Shea, Benjamin and Elgart, Michael and Kurniansyah, Nuzulul and Lyons, Genevieve and Morrison, Alanna C and Carson, April P and Haring, Bernhard and Mitchel, Braxton D and Psaty, Bruce M and Jaeger, Byron C and Gu, C Charles and Kooperberg, Charles and Levy, Daniel and Lloyd-Jones, Donald and Choi, Eunhee and Brody, Jennifer A and Smith, Jennifer A and Rotter, Jerome I and Moll, Matthew and Fornage, Myriam and Simon, Noah and Castaldi, Peter and Casanova, Ramon and Chung, Ren-Hua and Kaplan, Robert and Loos, Ruth J F and Kardia, Sharon L R and Rich, Stephen S and Redline, Susan and Kelly, Tanika and O{\textquoteright}Connor, Timothy and Zhao, Wei and Kim, Wonji and Guo, Xiuqing and Der Ida Chen, Yii and Sofer, Tamar} } @article {9702, title = {Machine learning models for predicting blood pressure phenotypes by combining multiple polygenic risk scores.}, journal = {Sci Rep}, volume = {14}, year = {2024}, month = {2024 May 30}, pages = {12436}, abstract = {

We construct non-linear machine learning (ML) prediction models for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) using demographic and clinical variables and polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We developed a two-model ensemble, consisting of a baseline model, where prediction is based on demographic and clinical variables only, and a genetic model, where we also include PRSs. We evaluate the use of a linear versus a non-linear model at both the baseline and the genetic model levels and assess the improvement in performance when incorporating multiple PRSs. We report the ensemble model{\textquoteright}s performance as percentage variance explained (PVE) on a held-out test dataset. A non-linear baseline model improved the PVEs from 28.1 to 30.1\% (SBP) and 14.3\% to 17.4\% (DBP) compared with a linear baseline model. Including seven PRSs in the genetic model computed based on the largest available GWAS of SBP/DBP improved the genetic model PVE from 4.8 to 5.1\% (SBP) and 4.7 to 5\% (DBP) compared to using a single PRS. Adding additional 14 PRSs computed based on two independent GWASs further increased the genetic model PVE to 6.3\% (SBP) and 5.7\% (DBP). PVE differed across self-reported race/ethnicity groups, with primarily all non-White groups benefitting from the inclusion of additional PRSs. In summary, non-linear ML models improves BP prediction in models incorporating diverse populations.

}, keywords = {Blood Pressure, Female, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genetic Risk Score, Genome-Wide Association Study, Humans, Hypertension, Machine Learning, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Genetic, Multifactorial Inheritance, Phenotype, Risk Factors}, issn = {2045-2322}, doi = {10.1038/s41598-024-62945-9}, author = {Hrytsenko, Yana and Shea, Benjamin and Elgart, Michael and Kurniansyah, Nuzulul and Lyons, Genevieve and Morrison, Alanna C and Carson, April P and Haring, Bernhard and Mitchell, Braxton D and Psaty, Bruce M and Jaeger, Byron C and Gu, C Charles and Kooperberg, Charles and Levy, Daniel and Lloyd-Jones, Donald and Choi, Eunhee and Brody, Jennifer A and Smith, Jennifer A and Rotter, Jerome I and Moll, Matthew and Fornage, Myriam and Simon, Noah and Castaldi, Peter and Casanova, Ramon and Chung, Ren-Hua and Kaplan, Robert and Loos, Ruth J F and Kardia, Sharon L R and Rich, Stephen S and Redline, Susan and Kelly, Tanika and O{\textquoteright}Connor, Timothy and Zhao, Wei and Kim, Wonji and Guo, Xiuqing and Ida Chen, Yii-Der and Sofer, Tamar} } @article {9984, title = {Polygenic scores for obstructive sleep apnoea reveal pathways contributing to cardiovascular disease.}, journal = {EBioMedicine}, volume = {117}, year = {2025}, month = {2025 Jul}, pages = {105790}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common chronic condition, with obesity its strongest risk factor. Polygenic scores (PGSs) summarise the genetic liability to phenotype and can provide insights into relationships between phenotypes. Recently, large datasets that include genetic data and OSA status became available, providing an opportunity to utilise PGS approaches to study the genetic relationship between OSA and other phenotypes, while differentiating OSA-specific from obesity-specific genetic factors.

METHODS: Using race/ethnic diverse samples from over 1.2 million individuals from the Million Veteran Program, FinnGen, TOPMed, All of Us (AoU), Geisinger{\textquoteright}s MyCode, MGB Biobank, and the Human Phenotype Project, we developed and assessed PGSs for OSA, both without (BMIunadjOSA-PGS) and with adjustment for the genetic contributions of BMI (BMIadjOSA-PGS).

FINDINGS: Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for OSA per 1 standard deviation of the PGSs ranged from 1.38 to 2.75. The associations of BMIadjOSA- and BMIunadjOSA-PGSs with CVD outcomes in AoU shared both common and distinct patterns. Only BMIunadjOSA-PGS was associated with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and coronary artery disease, while both BMIadjOSA- and BMIunadjOSA-PGSs were associated with hypertension and stroke. Sex stratified analyses revealed that BMIadjOSA-PGS association with hypertension was driven by females (OR = 1.1, p-value = 0.002, OR = 1.01 p-value = 0.2 in males). OSA PGSs were also associated with body fat measures with some sex-specific associations.

INTERPRETATION: Distinct components of OSA genetic risk are related and independent of obesity. Sex-specific associations with body fat distribution measures may explain differing OSA risks and associations with cardiometabolic morbidities between sexes.

FUNDING: R01AG080598.

}, keywords = {Aged, Body Mass Index, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multifactorial Inheritance, Obesity, Odds Ratio, Phenotype, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Risk Factors, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive}, issn = {2352-3964}, doi = {10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105790}, author = {Kurniansyah, Nuzulul and Strausz, Satu J and Chittoor, Geetha and Gupta, Shreyash and Justice, Anne E and Hrytsenko, Yana and Keenan, Brendan T and Cade, Brian E and Spitzer, Brian W and Wang, Heming and Huffman, Jennifer and Moll, Matthew R and Haring, Bernhard and Jung, Su Yon and Raffield, Laura M and Kaplan, Robert and Rotter, Jerome I and Rich, Stephen S and Gharib, Sina A and Bartz, Traci M and Liu, Peter Y and Chen, Han and Fornage, Myriam and Hou, Lifang and Levy, Daniel and Morrison, Alanna C and Ochs-Balcom, Heather M and Psaty, Bruce M and Wilson, Peter W F and Cho, Kelly and Pack, Allan I and Ollila, Hanna M and Redline, Susan and Gottlieb, Daniel J and Sofer, Tamar} }