ArticleScientific reports2026
Multimodal deep learning approaches for improving polygenic risk scores with imaging data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- AI-based multimodal integration of genomics and electronic health records.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Genomic Data Analysis: New Frontiers in Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-integrated multimodal retinal imaging for early detection and risk stratification of systemic vascular and neurodegenerative diseases.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhancing the predictive accuracy of polygenic risk scores (PRS) can be achieved by incorporating imaging data, which captures disease-related phenotypic variations. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of PRS, image-derived deep learning scores (IDS), imaging-derived phenotypes (IDPs), and clinical covariates. Additionally, IDP-proxy genetic scores (IGSs) were developed as substitutes for IDPs in cases where imaging data are unavailable. The study assessed the predictive performance of these variables for glaucoma using the XGBoost model. IDS was generated using a deep learning model trained on optical coherence tomography (OCT) images obtained from the UK Biobank. The dataset included 55,469 samples with OCT imaging data and 402,847 samples without OCT images. To accommodate cases without imaging data, IGSs were introduced as replacements for IDPs. The AUC was used to compare the performance of individual predictors and multimodal models. Among single predictors, IDS demonstrated the highest predictive performance, achieving an AUC of 0.7742, indicating its effectiveness in capturing glaucoma-related structural changes. IDPs and PRS showed lower AUCs of 0.7106 and 0.6150, respectively. The multimodal model integrating PRS, IDS, IDPs, and clinical covariates achieved the highest predictive accuracy with an AUC of 0.7921. When imaging data were unavailable, IGSs alone had a relatively low AUC (0.5467), but performance improved to 0.7397 when combined with PRS and clinical covariates, demonstrating their viability as substitutes for IDPs. This study highlights the effectiveness of deep learning-based image features in glaucoma risk prediction and demonstrates that integrating genetic, imaging, and clinical data enhances predictive accuracy. Additionally, IGSs provide a viable alternative to IDPs when imaging data are unavailable, ensuring reliable glaucoma risk assessment in resource-limited settings.
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.