Back

Utility of polygenic risk scores in diagnostic genetic testing for dilated cardiomyopathy

Chowdhury, U. N.; Giannoulatou, E. N.; Fatkin, D.; Atherton, J. J.; Palpant, N. J.; Couvy-Duchesne, B.; Shah, S.

2026-01-22 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.01.20.26344484 medRxiv
Show abstract

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a major driver of heart failure and transplantation. Despite its strong genetic basis, clinical genetic testing identifies pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in only about one-third of cases. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) indicate that common variants also contribute to genetic risk, but utility of polygenic risk score (PRS) for diagnostic testing is unclear. We derived a DCM PRS from a large GWAS and applied it to 113 Australian Genomics Health Alliance (AGHA) participants of genetically determined European ancestry with clinically diagnosed DCM, with most having a family history of disease. Genetic testing identified a P/LP variant in 34% of patients. Using 450,280 UK Biobank participants of European ancestry as a reference, we selected the best performing PRS (SBayesRC; odds ratio per SD increase in PRS = 1.72, 95% CI 1.58-1.88). We compared the PRS of individuals with a P/LP variant in the TTN gene (TTN_G+) or other genes (nonTTN_G+), and in those without any P/LP or variants of unknown significance identified (G-). Relative to the UK Biobank reference, median PRS values were significantly higher in G- and TTN_G+ groups. Twenty-six percent of G- and 25% of TTN_G+ cases were in the top decile, versus 11% of nonTTN_G+ cases. Notably, TTN_G+ cases were absent from the lowest four deciles. These findings support a substantial polygenic contribution in DCM patients without identifiable monogenic variants as well as in TTN-related DCM. Incorporating PRS alongside routine genetic testing could increase diagnostic yield and inform risk management for patients and families.

Matching journals

The top 7 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.