Follow this preprint
Epistatic Features and Machine Learning Improve Alzheimer’s Risk Prediction Over Polygenic Risk Scores
Stephen Hermes, Janet Cady, Steven Armentrout, James O’Connor, Sarah Carlson, View ORCID ProfileCarlos Cruchaga, View ORCID ProfileThomas Wingo, Ellen McRae Greytak, The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.10.23285766
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
Stephen Hermes
1Parabon NanoLabs, Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA
Janet Cady
1Parabon NanoLabs, Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA
Steven Armentrout
1Parabon NanoLabs, Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA
James O’Connor
1Parabon NanoLabs, Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA
Sarah Carlson
1Parabon NanoLabs, Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA
Carlos Cruchaga
2Department of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
3Hope Center Program on Protein Aggregation and Neurodegeneration, Washington University St. Louis, MO, USA
Thomas Wingo
4Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
5Department of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
6Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
Ellen McRae Greytak
1Parabon NanoLabs, Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA

Data Availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Posted March 15, 2023.
Epistatic Features and Machine Learning Improve Alzheimer’s Risk Prediction Over Polygenic Risk Scores
Stephen Hermes, Janet Cady, Steven Armentrout, James O’Connor, Sarah Carlson, Carlos Cruchaga, Thomas Wingo, Ellen McRae Greytak, The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
medRxiv 2023.02.10.23285766; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.10.23285766
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
1
Blogs/Media
0
Author Videos
Subject Areas
- Addiction Medicine (419)
- Allergy and Immunology (741)
- Anesthesia (217)
- Cardiovascular Medicine (3192)
- Dermatology (270)
- Emergency Medicine (472)
- Epidemiology (13179)
- Forensic Medicine (19)
- Gastroenterology (883)
- Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5009)
- Geriatric Medicine (467)
- Health Economics (767)
- Health Informatics (3153)
- Health Policy (1118)
- Hematology (418)
- HIV/AIDS (992)
- Medical Education (466)
- Medical Ethics (122)
- Nephrology (512)
- Neurology (4761)
- Nursing (253)
- Nutrition (706)
- Oncology (2449)
- Ophthalmology (696)
- Orthopedics (273)
- Otolaryngology (335)
- Pain Medicine (317)
- Palliative Medicine (89)
- Pathology (525)
- Pediatrics (1270)
- Primary Care Research (541)
- Public and Global Health (7324)
- Radiology and Imaging (1643)
- Respiratory Medicine (959)
- Rheumatology (469)
- Sports Medicine (413)
- Surgery (530)
- Toxicology (68)
- Transplantation (227)
- Urology (197)