Back

Polygenic prediction of cardiorespiratory fitness: The HUNT Study

Ovretveit, K.; Klevjer, M.; Brumpton, B. M.; Wisloff, U.; Hveem, K.; Bye, A.

2025-07-07 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.07.07.25330991 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has a strong genetic component and low CRF is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a polygenic score (PGS) for CRF (CRFPGS) and assess its associations with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. We hypothesized that the CRFPGS would demonstrate similar cardioprotective benefits as the CRF phenotype. MethodsEffect estimates from a genome-wide association study on directly measured CRF in the Trondelag Health Study (HUNT; n = 4 525) were used in a Bayesian regression framework to develop multiple PGSs in an independent cohort from the UK Biobank (n = 65 165). The top performing score was applied in the HUNT target cohort, excluding the discovery sample (n = 82 109). ResultsThe PGS-CRF association varied considerably as a function of model fit and phenotypic accuracy. In the target population, we observed a difference in CRF of 1.55 [95% confidence interval: 1.26, 1.84] mL{middle dot}kg-1{middle dot}min-1 between the bottom and top decile of the CRFPGS. Moreover, a high CRFPGS demonstrated cardioprotective effects, with reduced risk for CVD, myocardial infarction, hypertension, and all-cause mortality. We also found that the CRFPGS predisposed to lower risk of heart failure and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in women. ConclusionA PGS for CRF derived from gold-standard phenotypes captures small, but potentially clinical meaningful variations in CRF, and is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Heterogeneity in CRF phenotyping in large populations remains a challenge to PGS development and refinement.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.