ArticlePloS one2023
Assessing the potential of polygenic scores to strengthen medical risk prediction models of COVID-19.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying direct risk factors in UK Biobank via simultaneous Bayesian-frequentist model-averaged hypothesis testing using Doublethink.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Correction: Assessing the potential of polygenic scores to strengthen medical risk prediction models of COVID-19.PloS one · 2025Article
- No evidence that ACE2 or TMPRSS2 drive population disparity in COVID risks.BMC medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As findings on the epidemiological and genetic risk factors for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) continue to accrue, their joint power and significance for prospective clinical applications remains virtually unexplored. Severity of symptoms in individuals affected by COVID-19 spans a broad spectrum, reflective of heterogeneous host susceptibilities across the population. Here, we assessed the utility of epidemiological risk factors to predict disease severity prospectively, and interrogated genetic information (polygenic scores) to evaluate whether they can provide further insights into symptom heterogeneity. A standard model was trained to predict severe COVID-19 based on principal component analysis and logistic regression based on information from eight known medical risk factors for COVID-19 measured before 2018. In UK Biobank participants of European ancestry, the model achieved a relatively high performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ~90%). Polygenic scores for COVID-19 computed from summary statistics of the Covid19 Host Genetics Initiative displayed significant associations with COVID-19 in the UK Biobank (p-values as low as 3.96e-9, all with R2 under 1%), but were unable to robustly improve predictive performance of the non-genetic factors. However, error analysis of the non-genetic models suggested that affected individuals misclassified by the medical risk factors (predicted low risk but actual high risk) display a small but consistent increase in polygenic scores. Overall, the results indicate that simple models based on health-related epidemiological factors measured years before COVID-19 onset can achieve high predictive power. Associations between COVID-19 and genetic factors were statistically robust, but currently they have limited predictive power for translational settings. Despite that, the outcomes also suggest that severely affected cases with a medical history profile of low risk might be partly explained by polygenic factors, prompting development of boosted COVID-19 polygenic models based on new data and tools to aid risk-prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.