Risk prediction for complex diseases: application to Parkinson disease
Open accessAbstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of Parkinson disease using clinical and demographic data alone and when combined with information from genes associated with Parkinson disease.Methods A total of 1,967 participants in the dbGAP NeuroGenetics Research Consortium data set were included. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with Parkinson disease at a genome-wide significance level in previous genome-wide association studies were included in risk prediction. Risk allele scores were calculated as the weighted count of the minor alleles. Five models were constructed. Discriminatory capability was evaluated using the area under the curve.Results Both family history and genetic risk scores increased risk for Parkinson disease. Although the fullest model, which included both family history and genetic risk information, resulted in the highest area under the curve, there were no significant differences between models using family history alone and those using genetic information alone.Conclusion Adding genome-wide association study-derived genotypes, family history information, or both to standard demographic risk factors for Parkinson disease resulted in an improvement in discriminatory capacity. In the full model, the contributions of genotype data and family history information to discriminatory capacity were similar, and both were statistically significant. This suggests that there is limited overlap between genetic risk factors identified through genome-wide association study and unmeasured susceptibility variants captured by family history. Our results are similar to those of studies of other complex diseases and indicate that genetic risk prediction for Parkinson disease requires identification of additional genetic risk factors and/or better methods for risk prediction in order to achieve a degree of risk prediction that is clinically useful.Genet Med 2013:15(5):361-367.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Genetic risk models have been shown to predict PD status from healthy controls, or correlate with aspects of PD severity or progression, with modest but statistically significant accuracy.
“While only <10% of the heritability of PD has been explained by current genetic findings (Darweesh et al., 2016; Nalls et al., 2014; Pihlstrom et al., 2016), and while the clinical utility of genetic testing for PD outside of early onset patient populations is limited (Klein & Westenberger, 2012), genetic risk models have been shown to predict PD status from healthy controls, or correlate with”
From Combined accelerometer and genetic analysis to differentiate essential tremor from Parkinson’s disease (2018) · cites this paper as Hall et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Hall, T. O., Wan, J. Y., Mata, I. F., Kerr, K. F., Snapinn, K. W., Samii, A., Roberts, J. W., Agarwal, P., Zabetian, C. P., & Edwards, K. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Virginia Mason Medical Center (US)
- Evergreen Health Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Edwards, Karen L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Genetics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 361-367
- ISSN
- 1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3687522
- OpenAlex
- W2094069121
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2022: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 BX000531)
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA149051)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P50NS062684, R01NS065070, R01NS036960)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
- Keywords
- Parkinson's disease, risk prediction, polygenic risk score, single nucleotide polymorphisms, family history (medicine), complex diseases, genome-wide association study, discriminatory power, neurogenetics
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Alleles, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Genetic, Parkinson Disease, Prognosis, Risk, ROC Curve, Case-Control Studies, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Multifactorial Inheritance, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review