Polygenic risk scores outperform machine learning methods in predicting 
coronary artery disease status

Gola, Damian; Erdmann, Jeannette; Mueller-Myhsok, Bertram; Schunkert, Heribert; Koenig, Inke R.

doi:10.1002/gepi.22279

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Polygenic risk scores outperform machine learning methods in predicting coronary artery disease status

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons80450

Mueller-Myhsok, Bertram
RG Statistical Genetics, Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Gola, D., Erdmann, J., Mueller-Myhsok, B., Schunkert, H., & Koenig, I. R. (2020). Polygenic risk scores outperform machine learning methods in predicting coronary artery disease status. GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 44(2), 125-138. doi:10.1002/gepi.22279.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0008-C18F-D

Abstract

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading global cause of mortality and has substantial heritability with a polygenic architecture. Recent approaches of risk prediction were based on polygenic risk scores (PRS) not taking possible nonlinear effects into account and restricted in that they focused on genetic loci associated with CAD, only. We benchmarked PRS, (penalized) logistic regression, naive Bayes (NB), random forests (RF), support vector machines (SVM), and gradient boosting (GB) on a data set of 7,736 CAD cases and 6,774 controls from Germany to identify the algorithms for most accurate classification of CAD status. The final models were tested on an independent data set from Germany (527 CAD cases and 473 controls). We found PRS to be the best algorithm, yielding an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% CI [0.90, 0.95], 50,633 loci) in the German test data. NB and SVM (AUC similar to 0.81) performed better than RF and GB (AUC similar to 0.75). We conclude that using PRS to predict CAD is superior to machine learning methods.