Rita Hamad1,2, M Maria Glymour3, Camilla Calmasini3, Thu T Nguyen1, Stefan Walter4, David H Rehkopf5. 1. From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Medicine and Public Health, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain. 5. Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efforts to explain the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) often focus on genetic factors or social determinants of health. There is little evidence on the comparative predictive value of each, which could guide clinical and public health investments in measuring genetic versus social information. We compared the variance in CVD-related outcomes explained by genetic versus socioeconomic predictors. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Health and Retirement Study (N = 8,720). We examined self-reported diabetes, heart disease, depression, smoking, and body mass index, and objectively measured total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. For each outcome, we compared the variance explained by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic position (SEP), and genetic characteristics including a polygenic score for each outcome and principal components (PCs) for genetic ancestry. We used R-squared values derived from race-stratified multivariable linear regressions to evaluate the variance explained. RESULTS: The variance explained by models including all predictors ranged from 3.7% to 14.3%. Demographic characteristics explained more than half this variance for most outcomes. SEP explained comparable or greater variance relative to the combination of the polygenic score and PCs for most conditions among both white and Black participants. The combination of SEP, polygenic score, and PCs performed substantially better, suggesting that each set of characteristics may independently contribute to the prediction of CVD-related outcomes. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department of Family & Community Medicine, UCSF. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on genetic inputs into personalized medicine predictive models, without considering measures of social context that have clear predictive value, needlessly ignores relevant information that is more feasible and affordable to collect on patients in clinical settings. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B879.
BACKGROUND: Efforts to explain the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) often focus on genetic factors or social determinants of health. There is little evidence on the comparative predictive value of each, which could guide clinical and public health investments in measuring genetic versus social information. We compared the variance in CVD-related outcomes explained by genetic versus socioeconomic predictors. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Health and Retirement Study (N = 8,720). We examined self-reported diabetes, heart disease, depression, smoking, and body mass index, and objectively measured total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. For each outcome, we compared the variance explained by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic position (SEP), and genetic characteristics including a polygenic score for each outcome and principal components (PCs) for genetic ancestry. We used R-squared values derived from race-stratified multivariable linear regressions to evaluate the variance explained. RESULTS: The variance explained by models including all predictors ranged from 3.7% to 14.3%. Demographic characteristics explained more than half this variance for most outcomes. SEP explained comparable or greater variance relative to the combination of the polygenic score and PCs for most conditions among both white and Black participants. The combination of SEP, polygenic score, and PCs performed substantially better, suggesting that each set of characteristics may independently contribute to the prediction of CVD-related outcomes. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department of Family & Community Medicine, UCSF. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on genetic inputs into personalized medicine predictive models, without considering measures of social context that have clear predictive value, needlessly ignores relevant information that is more feasible and affordable to collect on patients in clinical settings. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B879.
Authors: Alkes L Price; Nick J Patterson; Robert M Plenge; Michael E Weinblatt; Nancy A Shadick; David Reich Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Dirk Sibbing; Daniel Aradi; Dimitrios Alexopoulos; Jurrien Ten Berg; Deepak L Bhatt; Laurent Bonello; Jean-Philippe Collet; Thomas Cuisset; Francesco Franchi; Lisa Gross; Paul Gurbel; Young-Hoon Jeong; Roxana Mehran; David J Moliterno; Franz-Josef Neumann; Naveen L Pereira; Matthew J Price; Marc S Sabatine; Derek Y F So; Gregg W Stone; Robert F Storey; Udaya Tantry; Dietmar Trenk; Marco Valgimigli; Ron Waksman; Dominick J Angiolillo Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Teri A Manolio; Robb Rowley; Marc S Williams; Dan Roden; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Carol Bult; Rex L Chisholm; Patricia A Deverka; Howard L McLeod; George A Mensah; Mary V Relling; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Cecelia Tamburro; Eric D Green Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Min Hee Kim; Gabriel L Schwartz; Justin S White; M Maria Glymour; Sean F Reardon; Kiarri N Kershaw; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Daniel F Collin; Pushkar P Inamdar; Guangyi Wang; Rita Hamad Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 11.613