From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Epidemiology. 2022 Jan 1;33(1):25-33. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001425.
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.
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.
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.
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.
解释心血管疾病(CVD)负担的努力通常侧重于遗传因素或健康的社会决定因素。关于每种因素的相对预测价值的证据很少,这可能会指导临床和公共卫生投资,以衡量遗传与社会信息。我们比较了遗传与社会经济预测因素对 CVD 相关结果的解释方差。
数据来自健康与退休研究(N=8720)。我们检查了自我报告的糖尿病、心脏病、抑郁、吸烟和体重指数,以及客观测量的总胆固醇和高密度脂蛋白胆固醇。对于每个结果,我们比较了人口特征、社会经济地位(SEP)和遗传特征(包括每个结果的多基因评分和遗传祖先的主成分(PCs))解释的方差。我们使用来自种族分层多变量线性回归的 R 平方值来评估解释的方差。
包括所有预测因子的模型解释的方差范围为 3.7%至 14.3%。对于大多数结果,人口特征解释了超过一半的这种方差。SEP 相对于白色和黑色参与者的大多数情况下多基因评分和 PCs 的组合解释了更多或相当的方差。SEP、多基因评分和 PCs 的组合表现出明显更好的效果,这表明每一组特征可能独立有助于预测 CVD 相关结果。
将重点放在个性化医学预测模型的遗传投入上,而不考虑具有明确预测价值的社会背景措施,不必要地忽略了在临床环境中更容易收集且更实惠的相关信息。在,http://links.lww.com/EDE/B879 观看视频摘要。