Back

Osteoporosis Genetic Risk Prediction Using Bone Mineral Density Polygenic Scores in Japanese: TMM CommCohort Study

Otsuka-Yamasaki, Y.; Sutoh, Y.; Hachiya, T.; Nakao, M.; Minabe, S.; Komaki, S.; Ohmomo, H.; Sasaki, M.; Shimizu, A.

2026-01-02 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.01.02.25342989 medRxiv
Show abstract

Osteoporosis and fractures are major health concerns. We developed and validated a polygenic score (PGS) for osteoporosis in a Japanese population using heel quantitative ultrasound-derived T-scores. Genome-wide association study data from 12,371 participants in the Tohoku Medical Megabank Community-Based Cohort identified genome-wide significant loci, including MBL2, TMEM135, and WNT16. PGS models were constructed and evaluated using independent datasets for model selection (n = 1,419) and validation (n = 8,711). Adding the PGS to age and sex yielded modest improvements in discrimination but supported genetic risk stratification. Compared with the intermediate group, the lowest PGS quintile (bottom 20%, genetically high-risk) had higher odds of osteoporosis (OR = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.40), whereas the highest PGS quintile (top 20%, genetically low-risk) had lower odds of osteoporosis (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71-0.98). Prospective follow-up (mean 3.4 years) showed a similar gradient for incident osteoporosis, with higher incidence rate ratios in the high-risk group (1.42, 95% CI: 1.17-1.73) and lower incidence rate ratios in the low-risk group (0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.89). Age-stratified analyses revealed no significant age-PGS interaction and no differences in the slope of age-related T-score declines across genetic risk groups. Observed T-scores in young adults (20-44 years) and extrapolation to age 20 suggested lower bone status around peak bone mass among genetically high-risk individuals. These findings indicate that a Japanese-specific PGS can stratify osteoporosis risk and may help identify individuals at elevated genetic risk earlier in adulthood.

Matching journals

The top 2 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.