Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29515099›Full record

ArticleNature communications2018

Improving genetic prediction by leveraging genetic correlations among human diseases and traits.

Robert M Maier, Zhihong Zhu, Sang Hong Lee, Maciej Trzaskowski, Douglas M Ruderfer, Eli A Stahl, Stephan Ripke, Naomi R Wray, Jian Yang, Peter M Visscher and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

103 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Robert M MaierQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia. rmaier@broadinstitute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3044-090X
Zhihong ZhuInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Sang Hong LeeQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Maciej TrzaskowskiInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Douglas M RuderferDivision of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Psychiatry and Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA.
Eli A StahlInstitute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Stephan RipkeStanley Center for Psychiatric Research, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA.
Naomi R WrayQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7421-3357
Jian YangQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2001-2474
Peter M VisscherQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia. peter.visscher@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2143-8760
Matthew R RobinsonInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia. matthew.robinson@unil.ch.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic prediction has the potential to contribute to precision medicine. However, to date, the utility of such predictors is limited due to low accuracy for most traits. Here theory and simulation study are used to demonstrate that widespread pleiotropy among phenotypes can be utilised to improve genomic risk prediction. We show how a genetic predictor can be created as a weighted index that combines published genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics across many different traits. We apply this framework to predict risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in the Psychiatric Genomics consortium data, finding substantial heterogeneity in prediction accuracy increases across cohorts. For six additional phenotypes in the UK Biobank data, we find increases in prediction accuracy ranging from 0.7% for height to 47% for type 2 diabetes, when using a multi-trait predictor that combines published summary statistics from multiple traits, as compared to a predictor based only on one trait.

Indexed as

Genetic PleiotropyGenome-Wide Association StudyModels, StatisticalBipolar DisorderGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansRisk AssessmentSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID29515099
PMCPMC5841449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.