Cited by 60Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Efficient cross-trait penalized regression increases prediction accuracy in large cohorts using secondary phenotypes

Open access
Chung, Wonil, Chen, Jun, Turman, Constance, Lindstrom, Sara, Zhu, Zhaozhong, Loh, Po-Ru, Kraft, Peter, Liang, Liming·2019·Nature Communications

Abstract

We introduce cross-trait penalized regression (CTPR), a powerful and practical approach for multi-trait polygenic risk prediction in large cohorts. Specifically, we propose a novel cross-trait penalty function with the Lasso and the minimax concave penalty (MCP) to incorporate the shared genetic effects across multiple traits for large-sample GWAS data. Our approach extracts information from the secondary traits that is beneficial for predicting the primary trait based on individual-level genotypes and/or summary statistics. Our novel implementation of a parallel computing algorithm makes it feasible to apply our method to biobank-scale GWAS data. We illustrate our method using large-scale GWAS data (~1M SNPs) from the UK Biobank ( N = 456,837). We show that our multi-trait method outperforms the recently proposed multi-trait analysis of GWAS (MTAG) for predictive performance. The prediction accuracy for height by the aid of BMI improves from R 2 = 35.8% (MTAG) to 42.5% (MCP + CTPR) or 42.8% (Lasso + CTPR) with UK Biobank data.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-019-08535-0

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The elastic net algorithm was used because penalization improves prediction accuracy and maintains clinical interpretability compared with less transparent machine learning algorithms.

    “We used the elastic net algorithm, given substantial evidence that penalization improves prediction accuracy,25–27 alongside its well-established accuracy and robustness28,29 and ability to maintain clinical interpretability compared with less transparent machine learning algorithms (eg, random forests, neural networks).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chung, W., Chen, J., Turman, C., Lindstrom, S., Zhu, Z., Loh, P.-R., Kraft, P., & Liang, L.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Liang, Liming
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2019-02-04
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
569-569
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914485454
Cited by
60
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (16549, 5r01ca049449-18, 5p01dk070756-05, R01 CA49449, UM1-CA-176726, P01DK070756)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_PC_17228)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL035464, R01HL116854, R01HL034594, R01HL088521)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U01HG004728)
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY015473, P30EY014104, R01EY022305)
  • National Cancer Institute (R03CA165131, R01CA131332, P01CA087969, P01CA055075, UM1CA186107, R01CA050385, R01CA067262)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03DC013373)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM105857)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
polygenic risk prediction, multi-trait GWAS, LASSO, minimax concave penalty, shared genetic effects, parallel computing, height prediction, body mass index, UK Biobank, biobank-scale data
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Genotype, Humans, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Quantitative Trait Loci, 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