PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

Mark Woodward

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Woodward.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Improving the reliability of polygenic risk score-based prediction for cardiovascular and renal complications across ancestries in type 2 diabetes using Mondrian Cross-Conformal Prediction.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) developed in European populations often show reduced predictive performance in non-European populations, limiting their clinical utility. This lack of transferability across ancestries remains a major challenge in genomic medicine and raises concerns about health equity. We aimed to evaluate whether uncertainty-aware prediction, implemented through Mondrian Cross-Conformal Prediction, improves the performance and reliability of polygenic risk score-based predictions across ancestries for nephropathy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in individuals with type 2 diabetes in a multi-ethnic cohort. We leveraged Mondrian Cross-Conformal Prediction (MCCP), an uncertainty quantification framework, combined with logistic regression applied to a multi-polygenic risk score (multiPRS) to predict the risk of nephropathy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Two training frameworks were evaluated: one using 4,098 individuals with type 2 diabetes of European ancestry from the ADVANCE trial for training and 17,574 White British, 1,145 South Asian, and 749 African UK Biobank participants for testing; and another using the 17,574 White British UK Biobank participants for training and the South Asian and African participants for testing. Logistic regression provided robust baseline performance across populations. On top of this baseline, MCCP did not improve performance but added capabilities absent from probability-based stratification: for each individual, it issued a prediction together with an explicit confidence and credibility level; it allowed a tolerated error level to be set in advance and delivered prediction sets respecting it in the majority of settings; and it flagged individuals for whom no reliable prediction could be made. Applying MCCP to PRS-based prediction thus enables uncertainty-aware risk stratification and improves the reliability of risk prediction across ancestries, providing a more equitable framework for clinical use.

Female

Blood Pressure Lowering and Risk of Cancer: Individual Participant-Level Data Meta-Analysis and Mendelian Randomization Studies.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic blood pressure (BP) lowering is typically a lifelong treatment, and both clinicians and patients may have concerns about the long-term use of antihypertensive agents and the risk for cancer. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of long-term pharmacologic BP lowering on the risk for new-onset cancer is limited, with most knowledge derived from observational studies. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether long-term BP lowering affects the risk for new-onset cancer, cause-specific cancer death, and selected site-specific cancers. METHODS: Individual-level data from 42 RCTs were pooled using a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident cancer of all types, and secondary outcomes were cause-specific cancer death and selected site-specific cancers. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the heterogeneity of the BP-lowering effect by baseline variables and over follow-up time. Cox proportional hazards regression, stratified by trial, was used for the statistical analysis. For site-specific cancers, analyses were complemented with Mendelian randomization, using naturally randomized genetic variants associated with BP lowering to mimic the design of a long-term RCT. RESULTS: Data from 314,016 randomly allocated participants without known cancer at baseline were analyzed. Over a median follow-up of 4 years (Q1-Q3: 3-5 years), 17,954 participants (5.7%) developed cancer, and 4,878 (1.5%) died of cancer. In the individual participant data meta-analysis, no associations were found between reductions in systolic or diastolic BP and cancer risk (HR per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.99-1.06]; HR per 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.98-1.07]). No changes in relative risk for incident cancer were observed over follow-up time, nor was there evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects across baseline subgroups. No effect on cause-specific cancer death was found. For site-specific cancers, no evidence of an effect was observed, except a possible link with lung cancer risk (HR for systolic BP reduction: 1.17; 99.5% CI: 1.02-1.32). Mendelian randomization studies showed no association between systolic or diastolic BP reduction and site-specific cancers, including overall lung cancer and its subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized data analysis provided no evidence to indicate that pharmacologic BP lowering has a substantial impact, either increasing or decreasing, on the risk for incident cancer, cause-specific cancer death, or selected site-specific cancers.

epidemiology