Narrow Results

Stocks have become a common way to manage money and invest. However, it is too risky for initial users to invest directly. In the era of artificial intelligence, computer technology can be combined with many fields. This paper summarizes and designs a stock investment simulation system which combines the front and back end. The front end uses the VUE framework, and the back end builds a database. The back end uses Python to write the server to help novices quickly get familiar with the form of stock investment methods. This system also adds a risk assessment method to evaluate the risk coefficient of the stock, so that beginners can better adapt to real stock investment.

This PSB 2023 session discusses challenges in clinical implication and application of risk prediction models, which includes but is not limited to: implementation of risk models, responsible use of polygenic risk scores (PGS), and other risk prediction strategies. We focus on the development and use of new, scalable methods for harmonizing and refining risk prediction models by incorporating genetic and non-genetic risk factors, applying new phenotyping strategies, and integrating clinical factors and biomarkers. Lastly, we will discuss innovation in expanding the utility of these prediction models to underrepresented populations. This session focuses on the overarching theme of enabling early diagnosis, and treatment and preventive measures related to complex diseases and comorbidities.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have led to enthusiasm for precision medicine. However, it is well documented that PRS do not generalize across groups differing in ancestry or sample characteristics e.g., age. Quantifying performance of PRS across different groups of study participants, using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics from multiple ancestry groups and sample sizes, and using different linkage disequilibrium (LD) reference panels may clarify which factors are limiting PRS transferability. To evaluate these factors in the PRS generation process, we generated body mass index (BMI) PRS (PRS_BMI) in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network (N=75,661). Analyses were conducted in two ancestry groups (European and African) and three age ranges (adult, teenagers, and children). For PRS_BMI calculations, we evaluated five LD reference panels and three sets of GWAS summary statistics of varying sample size and ancestry. PRS_BMI performance increased for both African and European ancestry individuals using cross-ancestry GWAS summary statistics compared to European-only summary statistics (6.3% and 3.7% relative R² increase, respectively, p_African=0.038, p_European=6.26x10^-4). The effects of LD reference panels were more pronounced in African ancestry study datasets. PRS_BMI performance degraded in children; R² was less than half of teenagers or adults. The effect of GWAS summary statistics sample size was small when modeled with the other factors. Additionally, the potential of using a PRS generated for one trait to predict risk for comorbid diseases is not well understood especially in the context of cross-ancestry analyses – we explored clinical comorbidities from the electronic health record associated with PRS_BMI and identified significant associations with type 2 diabetes and coronary atherosclerosis. In summary, this study quantifies the effects that ancestry, GWAS summary statistic sample size, and LD reference panel have on PRS performance, especially in cross-ancestry and age-specific analyses.

The primary efforts of disease and epidemiological research can be divided into two areas: identifying the causal mechanisms and utilizing important variables for risk prediction. The latter is generally perceived as a more obtainable goal due to the vast number of readily available tools and the faster pace of obtaining results. However, the lower barrier of entry in risk prediction means that it is easy to make predictions, yet it is incredibility more difficult to make sound predictions. As an ever-growing amount of data is being generated, developing risk prediction models and turning them into clinically actionable findings is crucial as the next step. However, there are still sizable gaps before risk prediction models can be implemented clinically. While clinicians are eager to embrace new ways to improve patients’ care, they are overwhelmed by a plethora of prediction methods. Thus, the next generation of prediction models will need to shift from making simple predictions towards interpretable, equitable, explainable and ultimately, casual predictions.