A genome-wide genomic score added to standard recommended stratification tools does not improve the identification of patients with very low bone mineral density
Authors' conclusion
Our results suggest adding a GS to a CRF model does not improve prediction.
Study context
- Population
- Participants with bone mineral density (BMD) measured by CT in three thoracic vertebrae; very low BMD <80 mg/cm³
- Participants
- 1,421 participants
- Comparison
- Clinical risk factor (CRF) model plus genomic score vs CRF model for identifying very low BMD
- Outcome
- Discrimination (AUC) of participants with very low BMD (<80 mg/cm³)
Methodological detailsreclassification analyses
- Reclassification analyses
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Discrimination of very low BMD
- Adding the genomic score (GS) to the CRF model gave AUCs not statistically significant from the CRF model
- No improved reclassification or risk discrimination with CRF-GS vs CRF model at probability cutoffs of 6, 12 and 24%
Further findings
AUC of the GS alone, total cohort
- AUC for the GS (95% CI 0.52-0.61), corresponding to AUCs for osteoporosis risk factors
- 0.57
AUC of the GS alone, participants without indication for BMD testing (subgroup)
- AUC for the GS (95% CI 0.52-0.69), above or equal to AUCs for osteoporosis risk factors
- 0.60
Original publication
A genome-wide genomic score added to standard recommended stratification tools does not improve the identification of patients with very low bone mineral density. Osteoporos Int. Published 26 July 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →