scholarly journals Development and Validation of a Novel Dementia Risk Score in the UK Biobank Cohort

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melis Anatürk ◽  
Raihaan Patel ◽  
Georgios Georgiopoulos ◽  
Danielle Newby ◽  
Anya Topiwala ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION: Current prognostic models of dementia have had limited success in consistently identifying at-risk individuals. We aimed to develop and validate a novel dementia risk score (DRS) using the UK Biobank cohort.METHODS: After randomly dividing the sample into a training (n=166,487, 80%) and test set (n=41,621, 20%), logistic LASSO regression and standard logistic regression were used to develop the UKB-DRS.RESULTS: The score consisted of age, sex, education, apolipoprotein E4 genotype, a history of diabetes, stroke, and depression, and a family history of dementia. The UKB-DRS had good-to-strong discrimination accuracy in the UKB hold-out sample (AUC [95%CI]=0.79 [0.77, 0.82]) and in an external dataset (Whitehall II cohort, AUC [95%CI]=0.83 [0.79,0.87]). The UKB-DRS also significantly outperformed four published risk scores (i.e., Australian National University Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI), Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia score (CAIDE), Dementia Risk Score (DRS), and the Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Score (FRS) across both test sets.CONCLUSION: The UKB-DRS represents a novel easy-to-use tool that could be used for routine care or targeted selection of at-risk individuals into clinical trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Radenkovic ◽  
S.C Chawla ◽  
G Botta ◽  
A Boli ◽  
M.B Banach ◽  
...  

Abstract   The two leading causes of mortality worldwide are cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. The annual total cost of CVD and cancer is an estimated $844.4 billion in the US and is projected to double by 2030. Thus, there has been an increased shift to preventive medicine to improve health outcomes and development of risk scores, which allow early identification of individuals at risk to target personalised interventions and prevent disease. Our aim was to define a Risk Score R(x) which, given the baseline characteristics of a given individual, outputs the relative risk for composite CVD, cancer incidence and all-cause mortality. A non-linear model was used to calculate risk scores based on the participants of the UK Biobank (= 502548). The model used parameters including patient characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity), baseline conditions, lifestyle factors of diet and physical activity, blood pressure, metabolic markers and advanced lipid variables, including ApoA and ApoB and lipoprotein(a), as input. The risk score was defined by normalising the risk function by a fixed value, the average risk of the training set. To fit the non-linear model >400,000 participants were used as training set and >45,000 participants were used as test set for validation. The exponent of risk function was represented as a multilayer neural network. This allowed capturing interdependent behaviour of covariates, training a single model for all outcomes, and preserving heterogeneity of the groups, which is in contrast to CoxPH models which are traditionally used in risk scores and require homogeneous groups. The model was trained over 60 epochs and predictive performance was determined by the C-index with standard errors and confidence intervals estimated with bootstrap sampling. By inputing the variables described, one can obtain personalised hazard ratios for 3 major outcomes of CVD, cancer and all-cause mortality. Therefore, an individual with a risk Score of e.g. 1.5, at any time he/she has 50% more chances than average of experiencing the corresponding event. The proposed model showed the following discrimination, for risk of CVD (C-index = 0.8006), cancer incidence (C-index = 0.6907), and all-cause mortality (C-index = 0.7770) on the validation set. The CVD model is particularly strong (C-index >0.8) and is an improvement on a previous CVD risk prediction model also based on classical risk factors with total cholesterol and HDL-c on the UK Biobank data (C-index = 0.7444) published last year (Welsh et al. 2019). Unlike classically-used CoxPH models, our model considers correlation of variables as shown by the table of the values of correlation in Figure 1. This is an accurate model that is based on the most comprehensive set of patient characteristics and biomarkers, allowing clinicians to identify multiple targets for improvement and practice active preventive cardiology in the era of precision medicine. Figure 1. Correlation of variables in the R(x) Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


Genes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 991
Author(s):  
Erik Widen ◽  
Timothy G. Raben ◽  
Louis Lello ◽  
Stephen D. H. Hsu

We use UK Biobank data to train predictors for 65 blood and urine markers such as HDL, LDL, lipoprotein A, glycated haemoglobin, etc. from SNP genotype. For example, our Polygenic Score (PGS) predictor correlates ∼0.76 with lipoprotein A level, which is highly heritable and an independent risk factor for heart disease. This may be the most accurate genomic prediction of a quantitative trait that has yet been produced (specifically, for European ancestry groups). We also train predictors of common disease risk using blood and urine biomarkers alone (no DNA information); we call these predictors biomarker risk scores, BMRS. Individuals who are at high risk (e.g., odds ratio of >5× population average) can be identified for conditions such as coronary artery disease (AUC∼0.75), diabetes (AUC∼0.95), hypertension, liver and kidney problems, and cancer using biomarkers alone. Our atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) predictor uses ∼10 biomarkers and performs in UKB evaluation as well as or better than the American College of Cardiology ASCVD Risk Estimator, which uses quite different inputs (age, diagnostic history, BMI, smoking status, statin usage, etc.). We compare polygenic risk scores (risk conditional on genotype: PRS) for common diseases to the risk predictors which result from the concatenation of learned functions BMRS and PGS, i.e., applying the BMRS predictors to the PGS output.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Chiara Fabbri ◽  
Julian Mutz ◽  
Cathryn M. Lewis ◽  
Alessandro Serretti

Abstract Background Wellbeing has a fundamental role in determining life expectancy and major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the main modulating factors of wellbeing. This study evaluated the modulators of wellbeing in individuals with lifetime recurrent MDD (RMDD), single-episode MDD (SMDD) and no MDD in the UK Biobank. Methods Scores of happiness, meaningful life and satisfaction about functioning were condensed in a functioning-wellbeing score (FWS). We evaluated depression and anxiety characteristics, neuroticism-related traits, physical diseases, lifestyle and polygenic risk scores (PRSs) of psychiatric disorders. Other than individual predictors, we estimated the cumulative contribution to FWS of each group of predictors. We tested the indirect role of neuroticism on FWS through the modulation of depression manifestations using a mediation analysis. Results We identified 47 966, 21 117 and 207 423 individuals with lifetime RMDD, SMDD and no MDD, respectively. Depression symptoms and personality showed the largest impact on FWS (variance explained ~20%), particularly self-harm, worthlessness feelings during the worst depression, chronic depression, loneliness and neuroticism. Personality played a stronger role in SMDD. Anxiety characteristics showed a higher effect in SMDD and no MDD groups. Neuroticism played indirect effects through specific depressive symptoms that modulated FWS. Physical diseases and lifestyle explained only 4–5% of FWS variance. The PRS of MDD showed the largest effect on FWS compared to other PRSs. Conclusions This was the first study to comprehensively evaluate the predictors of wellbeing in relation to the history of MDD. The identified variables are important to identify individuals at risk and promote wellbeing.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shea J. Andrews ◽  
G. Peggy McFall ◽  
Roger A. Dixon ◽  
Nicolas Cherbuin ◽  
Ranmalee Eramudugolla ◽  
...  

AbstractIntroductionWe investigated the association of the Australian National University Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI) and an AD genetic risk score (GRS) with cognitive performance.MethodsThe ANU-ADRI (composed of 11 risk factors for AD) and GRS (composed of 25 AD risk loci) were computed in 1,061 community-dwelling older adults. Participants were assessed on 11 cognitive tests and activities of daily living. Structural equation modelling was used to evaluate the association of the ANU-ADRI and GRS with: 1) general cognitive ability (g) 2) dementia related variance in cognitive performance (δ) and 3) verbal ability, episodic memory, executive function and processing speed.ResultsA worse ANU-ADRI score was associated with poorer performance in ‘g’, δ, and each cognitive domain. A worse GRS was associated with poorer performance in δ and episodic memory.DiscussionThe ANU-ADRI was broadly associated with worse cognitive performance, validating its further use in early dementia risk assessment.HighlightsAn environmental/lifestyle dementia risk index is broadly associated with cognitive performanceAn Alzheimer’s genetic risk score is associated with dementia severity and episodic memoryThe environmental risk index is more strongly associated with dementia severity than genetic riskResearch in ContextSystematic ReviewThe authors reviewed the literature using online databases (e.g. PubMed). Previous research has highlighted the need for dementia risk assessment tools to be evaluated on outcomes prior to dementia onset, such as cognitive performance. The relevant citations have been appropriately cited.InterpretationThe Australian National University Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI) was more broadly associated with cognitive performance than Alzheimer’s genetic risk. For the ANU-ADRI, stronger effects were observed for dementia-related variance in cognitive task performance that for variance in general cognitive function. This suggests that ANU-ADRI is more specifically associated with dementia-related processes and further validates its use in early risk assessment for dementia.Future DirectionsAccordingly, future studies should seek to evaluate the association of the ANU-ADRI and genetic risk with AD biomarkers and longitudinal cognitive performance to evaluate differential trajectories in ‘g’ and δ.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Widen ◽  
Timothy G. Raben ◽  
Louis Lello ◽  
Stephen D.H. Hsu

We use UK Biobank data to train predictors for 48 blood and urine markers such as HDL, LDL, lipoprotein A, glycated haemoglobin, ... from SNP genotype. For example, our predictor correlates ∼ 0.76 with lipoprotein A level, which is highly heritable and an independent risk factor for heart disease. This may be the most accurate genomic prediction of a quantitative trait that has yet been produced (specifically, for European ancestry groups). We also train predictors of common disease risk using blood and urine biomarkers alone (no DNA information). Individuals who are at high risk (e.g., odds ratio of > 5x population average) can be identified for conditions such as coronary artery disease (AUC ∼ 0.75), diabetes (AUC ∼ 0.95), hypertension, liver and kidney problems, and cancer using biomarkers alone. Our atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) predictor uses ∼ 10 biomarkers and performs in UKB evaluation as well as or better than the American College of Cardiology ASCVD Risk Estimator, which uses quite different inputs (age, diagnostic history, BMI, smoking status, statin usage, etc.). We compare polygenic risk scores (risk conditional on genotype: (risk score | SNPs)) for common diseases to the risk predictors which result from the concatenation of learned functions (risk score | biomarkers) and (biomarker | SNPs).


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S800-S800
Author(s):  
Dustin S Kehler ◽  
Olga Theou ◽  
Kenneth Rockwood

Abstract We compared the predictive and discriminative ability of frailty with traditional cardiovascular risk scores to estimate 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality risk. Individuals aged 20-79 years old from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey who were free from CVD were included (n= 32,066). A 33-item frailty index (FI) which excluded CVD and diabetes-related variables was calculated. We calculated the Framingham Disease Risk (FDR) Hard Coronary Heart Disease and General CVD risk scores, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk equation, and the European Systematic Coronary Risk Estimation tool. A total of 322 individuals died (1.0%) from CVD. There was a low correlation between the FI and CVD risk scores (spearman’s r= 0.19-0.33; p<0.0001) and a weak to strong correlation between CVD risk scores (spearman’s r=0.19-0.88; p<0.0001). The competing-risks hazard ratio for CVD mortality for every 1% increase in the FI was 1.040 (95% CI: 1.032-1.048; p<0.0001) in an age and sex-adjusted model. The FI was independently predictive of CVD mortality when the other CVD risk scores were added to the model. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.800 (95% CI: 0.789-0.808; p<0.0001) for the FI. ROC values for the CVD risk scores ranged from 0.710 (95% CI: 0.700-0.721; p<0.0001) for the AHA/ACC risk score to 0.779 (95% CI: 0.770-0.789; p<0.0001) for the FDR General CVD risk score. An FI calculated with non-CVD and diabetes variables can predict 10-year CVD mortality risk independently of traditional CVD risk scores.


BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Gong ◽  
Katie Harris ◽  
Sanne A. E. Peters ◽  
Mark Woodward

Abstract Background Sex differences in major cardiovascular risk factors for incident (fatal or non-fatal) all-cause dementia were assessed in the UK Biobank. The effects of these risk factors on all-cause dementia were explored by age and socioeconomic status (SES). Methods Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and women-to-men ratio of HRs (RHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), smoking, diabetes, adiposity, stroke, SES and lipids with dementia. Poisson regression was used to estimate the sex-specific incidence rate of dementia for these risk factors. Results 502,226 individuals in midlife (54.4% women, mean age 56.5 years) with no prevalent dementia were included in the analyses. Over 11.8 years (median), 4068 participants (45.9% women) developed dementia. The crude incidence rates were 5.88 [95% CI 5.62–6.16] for women and 8.42 [8.07–8.78] for men, per 10,000 person-years. Sex was associated with the risk of dementia, where the risk was lower in women than men (HR = 0.83 [0.77–0.89]). Current smoking, diabetes, high adiposity, prior stroke and low SES were associated with a greater risk of dementia, similarly in women and men. The relationship between blood pressure (BP) and dementia was U-shaped in men but had a dose-response relationship in women: the HR for SBP per 20 mmHg was 1.08 [1.02–1.13] in women and 0.98 [0.93–1.03] in men. This sex difference was not affected by the use of antihypertensive medication at baseline. The sex difference in the effect of raised BP was consistent for dementia subtypes (vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease). Conclusions Several mid-life cardiovascular risk factors were associated with dementia similarly in women and men, but not raised BP. Future bespoke BP-lowering trials are necessary to understand its role in restricting cognitive decline and to clarify any sex difference.


2021 ◽  
pp. 089719002199701
Author(s):  
Eileen D. Ward ◽  
Whitney A. Hopkins ◽  
Kayce Shealy

Background: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Risk Test (DRT) is a screening tool to identify people at risk for developing diabetes. Individuals with a DRT score of 5 or higher may have prediabetes or diabetes and should see a healthcare provider. Objective: To determine how many additional employees are identified as being at risk for developing diabetes during an employee wellness screening by using a more stringent DRT cutoff score of 4 instead of 5. Methods: During an annual employee wellness screening event, a hemoglobin A1C (A1c) was drawn for participants with a DRT score of > 4 or by request regardless of risk score. A1C values were classified as normal (<5.7%), prediabetes (>5.7 and <6.5%) or diabetes (>6.5%). Risk scores and A1C values were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Cost of additional laboratory testing was also reviewed. Results: An A1C was collected for 158 participants. Fourteen of 50 (28%) participants with a DRT of 4 had A1c values in the prediabetes range and no history of diabetes or prediabetes. Using the lower DRT score of 4 resulted in an additional expenditure of $305 with $85.40 resulting in the identification of an otherwise unaware person at risk for developing diabetes. Conclusion: Using a DRT cutoff score of 4 as part of an employee wellness screening program resulted in additional laboratory costs to identify persons at risk for developing diabetes but also allowed for earlier education to slow or stop the progression to diabetes which may reduce healthcare costs over time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document