Abstract
Polygenic scores (PGS), which aggregate the effects of genetic variants to estimate predisposition for a disease or trait, have potential clinical utility in disease prevention and precision medicine. Recently, there has been increasing interest in using deep learning (DL) methods to develop PGS, due to their strength in modelling complex non-linear relationships (such as GxG) that conventional PGS methods may not capture. However, the perceived value of DL for polygenic scores is unclear. In this study, we assess the underlying factors impacting DL performance and how they can be better utilised for PGS development. We simulate large-scale realistic genotype-to-phenotype data, with varying genetic architectures of phenotypes under quantitative control of three key components: (a) total heritability, (b) variant-variant interaction type, and (c) proportion of non-additive heritability. We compare the performance of one of most common DL methods (multi-layer perceptron, MLP) on varying training sample sizes, with two well-established PGS methods: a purely additive model (pruning and thresholding, P+T) and a machine learning method (Elastic net, EN). Our analyses show EN has consistently better overall performance across traits of different architectures and training data of different sizes. However, MLP saw the largest performance improvements as sample size increases. MLP outperformed P+T for most traits and achieves comparable performance as EN for numerous traits at the largest sample size assessed (N=100k), suggesting DL may offer some advantages in future when they can be trained on biobanks of millions of samples. We further found that one-hot encoding of variant input can improve performance of every method, particularly for traits with non-additive variance. Overall, we show how different underlying factors impact how well methods leverage non-additivity for polygenic prediction.
Competing Interest Statement
M.I. is a trustee of the Public Health Genomics (PHG) Foundation, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Open Targets, and has research collaborations with AstraZeneca, Nightingale Health and Pfizer which are unrelated to this study.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) program. JG was supported by a La Trobe University Postgraduate Research Scholarship jointly funded by the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute and a La Trobe University Full-Fee Research Scholarship. The support of the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged (ES/T013192/1). This work was supported by core funding from: the UK Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1), the British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194; RG/18/13/33946) and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). This work was also supported by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, and Wellcome. This study was supported by the Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) program. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. M.I. was supported by the Munz Chair of Cardiovascular Prediction and Prevention.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
