Deep neural network improves the estimation of polygenic risk scores for breast cancer
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) estimate the genetic risk of an individual for a complex disease based on many genetic variants across the whole genome. In this study, we compared a series of computational models for estimation of breast cancer PRS. A deep neural network (DNN) was found to outperform alternative machine learning techniques and established statistical algorithms, including BLUP, BayesA and LDpred. In the test cohort with 50% prevalence, the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC) were 67.4% for DNN, 64.2% for BLUP, 64.5% for BayesA, and 62.4% for LDpred. BLUP, BayesA, and LPpred all generated PRS that followed a normal distribution in the case population. However, the PRS generated by DNN in the case population followed a bi-modal distribution composed of two normal distributions with distinctly different means. This suggests that DNN was able to separate the case population into a high-genetic-risk case sub-population with an average PRS significantly higher than the control population and a normal-genetic-risk case sub-population with an average PRS similar to the control population. This allowed DNN to achieve 18.8% recall at 90% precision in the test cohort with 50% prevalence, which can be extrapolated to 65.4% recall at 20% precision in a general population with 12% prevalence. Interpretation of the DNN model identified salient variants that were assigned insignificant p-values by association studies, but were important for DNN prediction. These variants may be associated with the phenotype through non-linear relationships.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2023.
Builds on
7 of 57 references.
References · 7
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 7,005
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,458
- 2014Deep Learning in Neural Networks: An Overviewcited by 770
- 2015Empirical Evaluation of Rectified Activations in Convolutional Networkcited by 519
- 2018Utilising Deep Learning and Genome Wide Association Studies for Epistatic-Driven Preterm Birth Classification in African-American Womencited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.