Back

Polygenic Prediction of Substance Use Disorders in Clinical and Population Samples

Barr, P. B.; Ksinan, A.; Su, J.; Johnson, E. C.; Meyers, J. L.; Wetherill, L.; Latvala, A.; Aleive, F.; Chan, G.; Kuperman, S.; Nurnberger, J.; Kamarajan, C.; Anokhin, A.; Agrawal, A.; Rose, R. J.; Edenberg, H. J.; Schuckit, M.; Kaprio, J.; Dick, D. M.

2019-08-30 genetics
10.1101/748038 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Genome-wide, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as a useful way to characterize genetic liability using genotypic data. There is growing evidence that PRS may prove useful to identify those at increased risk for developing certain diseases. The current utility of PRS in relation to alcohol use disorders (AUD) remains an open question. Using data from both a population-based sample [the FinnTwin12 (FT12) study] and a high risk sample [the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA)], we examined the association between PRSs derived from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of 1) alcohol dependence/alcohol problems, 2) alcohol consumption, and 3) risky behaviors with AUD and other substance use disorder (SUD) symptoms. Individuals in the top 20%, 10%, and 5% of PRSs had increasingly greater odds of having an AUD compared to the lower end of the continuum in both COGA (80th % OR = 1.95; 90th % OR = 2.03; 95th % OR = 2.13) and FT12 (80th % OR = 1.77; 90th % OR = 2.27; 95th % OR = 2.39). Those in the top 5% reported greater levels of licit (alcohol and nicotine) and illicit (cannabis) SUD symptoms. PRSs can predict elevated risk for SUD in independent samples. However, clinical utility of these scores in their current form is modest. As these scores become more predictive of SUD, they may become useful to practitioners. Improvement in predictive ability will likely be dependent on increasing the size of well-phenotyped discovery samples.

Matching journals

The top 3 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.