PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 38352307

Distinguishing different psychiatric disorders using DDx-PRS.

Abstract

Despite great progress on methods for case-control polygenic prediction (e.g. schizophrenia vs. control), there remains an unmet need for a method that genetically distinguishes clinically related disorders (e.g. schizophrenia (SCZ) vs. bipolar disorder (BIP) vs. depression (MDD) vs. control); such a method could have important clinical value, especially at disorder onset when differential diagnosis can be challenging. Here, we introduce a method, Differential Diagnosis-Polygenic Risk Score (DDx-PRS), that jointly estimates posterior probabilities of each possible diagnostic category (e.g. SCZ=50%, BIP=25%, MDD=15%, control=10%) by modeling variance/covariance structure across disorders, leveraging case-control polygenic risk scores (PRS) for each disorder (computed using existing methods) and prior clinical probabilities for each diagnostic category. DDx-PRS uses only summary-level training data and does not use tuning data, facilitating implementation in clinical settings. In simulations, DDx-PRS was well-calibrated (whereas a simpler approach that analyzes each disorder marginally was poorly calibrated), and effective in distinguishing each diagnostic category vs. the rest. We then applied DDx-PRS to Psychiatric Genomics Consortium SCZ/BIP/MDD/control data, including summary-level training data from 3 case-control GWAS ( N =41,917-173,140 cases; total N =1,048,683) and held-out test data from different cohorts with equal numbers of each diagnostic category (total N =11,460). DDx-PRS was well-calibrated and well-powered relative to these training sample sizes, attaining AUCs of 0.66 for SCZ vs. rest, 0.64 for BIP vs. rest, 0.59 for MDD vs. rest, and 0.68 for control vs. rest. DDx-PRS produced comparable results to methods that leverage tuning data, confirming that DDx-PRS is an effective method. True diagnosis probabilities in top deciles of predicted diagnosis probabilities were considerably larger than prior baseline probabilities, particularly in projections to larger training sample sizes, implying considerable potential for clinical utility under certain circumstances. In conclusion, DDx-PRS is an effective method for distinguishing clinically related disorders.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wouter J Peyrot, Georgia Panagiotaropoulou, Loes M Olde Loohuis, Mark J Adams, Swapnil Awasthi, Tian Ge, Andrew M McIntosh, Brittany L Mitchell, Niamh Mullins, Kevin S O'Connell, Brenda W J H Penninx, Danielle Posthuma, Stephan Ripke, Douglas M Ruderfer, Emil Uffelmann, Bjarni J Vilhjalmsson, Zhihong Zhu, Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Bipolar Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Jordan W Smoller, Alkes L Price. 2024-02-04. Distinguishing different psychiatric disorders using DDx-PRS.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.02.24302228

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article