Back

Novel type 1 diabetes polygenic scores improve identification of type 1 diabetes in diverse populations

Nam, S.; Kreienkamp, R. J.; Li, J.; Mandla, R.; Tran, H.; Taylor, K.; Vora, M.; Huerta-Chagoya, A.; Wei, J.; Mulford, A. J.; Sanders, A. R.; Xu, J.; Billings, L. K.; Pasaniuc, B.; Carey, D. J.; Mirshahi, U. L.; Florez, J. C.; Manning, A. K.; Mercader, J. M.; Udler, M. S.; Deutsch, A. J.

2026-09-08 endocrinology
10.64898/2026.09.04.26361335 medRxiv
Show abstract

Most polygenic scores (PS) for type 1 diabetes were developed using European (EUR) ancestry datasets, limiting performance in non-European (non-EUR) populations. We evaluated novel type 1 diabetes PS across diverse populations to assess whether newer models improve prediction in underrepresented populations. Seven type 1 diabetes PS (T1D GRS2, T1D GRS2', T1D GRSHLA, T1GRS, TA-PS, TA-PS (S), T1D MAPS) were evaluated in All of Us and Mass General Brigham Biobank. Predictive performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). T1D GRS2 and T1D MAPS showed the highest AUC in All of Us, while other scores demonstrated comparatively lower performance. These highest-performing scores were then evaluated in a meta-analysis across three additional biobanks (Genomic Health Initiative at Endeavor Health, Penn Medicine BioBank, Geisinger MyCode). Among 2,782 individuals with type 1 diabetes and 546,577 controls, T1D MAPS showed comparable performance to T1D GRS2 in EUR populations but significantly improved discrimination in non-EUR populations (meta-analysis {Delta}AUC=0.049, p=1.7x10-7). Overall, T1D MAPS improves prediction in non-EUR populations, highlighting the importance of multi-ancestry approaches for equitable genetic risk prediction. These findings could inform precision medicine in diverse populations.

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.