RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Distinguishing different psychiatric disorders using DDx-PRS
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.02.02.24302228
DO 10.1101/2024.02.02.24302228
A1 Peyrot, Wouter J.
A1 Panagiotaropoulou, Georgia
A1 Olde Loohuis, Loes M.
A1 Adams, Mark J.
A1 Awasthi, Swapnil
A1 Ge, Tian
A1 McIntosh, Andrew M.
A1 Mitchell, Brittany L.
A1 Mullins, Niamh
A1 O’Connell, Kevin S
A1 Penninx, Brenda W.J.H.
A1 Posthuma, Danielle
A1 Ripke, Stephan
A1 Ruderfer, Douglas M.
A1 Uffelmann, Emil
A1 Vilhjalmsson, Bjarni J.
A1 Zhu, Zhihong
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 Smoller, Jordan W.
A1 Price, Alkes L.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/04/2024.02.02.24302228.abstract
AB 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.Competing Interest StatementDr. Ruderfer served on advisory boards for Illumina and Alkermes and has received research funds unrelated to this work from PTC Therapeutics. Dr. Vilhjalmsson is member of scientific advisory board for Allelica. Dr. Smoller is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Sensorium Therapeutics (with equity), and has received grant support from Biogen, Inc. He is PI of a collaborative study of the genetics of depression and bipolar disorder sponsored by 23andMe for which 23andMe provides analysis time as in-kind support but no payments. The other authors declare no competing interests.Funding StatementThis research was supported by NIH grants R01 HG006399 and R37 MH107649. We thank the participants who donated their time, life experiences and DNA to this research and the clinical and scientific teams that worked with them. We are deeply indebted to the investigators who comprise the PGC. The PGC has received major funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health (PGC4: R01MH124839, PGC3: U01 MH109528; PGC2: U01 MH094421; PGC1: U01 MH085520). Statistical analyses were carried out on the NL Genetic Cluster Computer (http://www.geneticcluster.org) hosted by SURFsara. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:We used simulated data and data from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium that has been described in detail in previous publications.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.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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe full case-control GWAS results for Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder can be downloaded from the website from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC): https://pgc.unc.edu/for-researchers/download-results/. To analyze individual level data of the PGC and GWAS results from subset of the full case-control data, a secondary analysis proposal is required to apply for collaboration.