RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Machine learning approaches for fracture risk assessment: a comparative analysis of genomic and phenotypic data in 5,130 older men
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.01.09.20016659
DO 10.1101/2020.01.09.20016659
A1 Qing Wu
A1 Fatma Nasoz
A1 Jongyun Jung
A1 Bibek Bhattarai
A1 Mira V Han
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/25/2020.01.09.20016659.abstract
AB The study aims were to develop fracture prediction models by using machine learning approaches and genomic data, as well as to identify the best modeling approach for fracture prediction. The genomic data of Osteoporotic Fractures in Men, cohort Study (n = 5,130), was analyzed. After a comprehensive genotype imputation, genetic risk score (GRS) was calculated from 1,103 associated SNPs for each participant. Data were normalized and split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%) for analysis. Random forest, gradient boosting, neural network, and logistic regression were used to develop prediction models for major osteoporotic fractures separately, with GRS, bone density and other risk factors as predictors. For model training, the synthetic minority over-sampling technique was used to account for low fracture rate, and 10-fold cross-validation was employed for hyperparameters optimization. In the testing set, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and accuracy were used to assess the model performance. The McNemar test was employed for pairwise comparisons to examine the accuracy difference between models. The results showed that the prediction performance of gradient boosting was the best, with AUC of 0.71 and an accuracy of 0.88, and the GRS ranked as the 7th most important variable in the model. The performance of random forest and neural network were also better than that of logistic regression. Pairwise comparisons showed that the accuracy difference between models was significant. This study suggested that improving fracture prediction can be achieved by incorporating genetic profiling and by utilizing the gradient boosting approach.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe research and analysis described in the present study was supported by a COBRE grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GR08954), the Genome Acquisition to Analytics (GAA) Research Core of the Personalized Medicine Center of Biomedical Research Excellence at the Nevada Institute of Personalized Medicine, and the National Supercomputing Institute at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The funding sponsors were not involved in the analysis design, genotype imputation, data analysis, and interpretation of the analysis results or the preparation, review, or approval of this manuscript.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe existing data from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) archived in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) was used for the analysis. Genotype and phenotype data of MrOS was acquired through authorized access (Accession: phs000373.v1.p1) after the analysis plan was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the National Institute of Health (NIH).