Deep learning for polygenic prediction: The role of heritability, interaction type and sample size
Jason GrealeyiD, Gad AbrahamiD, Guillaume MériciD, Rodrigo CánovasiD, Martin KelemeniD, Shu Mei TeoiD, Agus SalimiD, Michael InouyeiD, Yu XuiD
Abstract
Polygenic scores (PGS), which aggregate the effects of genetic variants to estimate predisposition for a disease or trait, have potential clinical utility in disease prevention and precision medicine. Recently, there has been increasing interest in using deep learning (DL) methods to develop PGS, due to their strength in modelling complex non-linear relationships (such as GxG) that conventional PGS methods may not capture. However, the perceived value of DL for polygenic scores is unclear. In this study, we assess the underlying factors impacting DL performance and how they can be better utilised for PGS development. We simulate large-scale realistic genotype-to-phenotype data, with varying genetic architectures of phenotypes under quantitative control of three key components: (a) total heritability, (b) variant-variant interaction type, and (c) proportion of non-additive heritability. We compare the performance of one of most common DL methods (multi-layer perceptron, MLP) on varying training sample sizes, with two well-established PGS methods: a purely additive model (pruning and thresholding, P+T) and a machine learning method (Elastic net, EN). Our analyses show EN has consistently better overall performance across traits of different architectures and training data of different sizes. However, MLP saw the largest performance improvements as sample size increases. MLP outperformed P+T for most traits and achieves comparable performance as EN for numerous traits at the largest sample size assessed (N=100k), suggesting DL may offer some advantages in future when they can be trained on biobanks of millions of samples. We further found that one-hot encoding of variant input can improve performance of every method, particularly for traits with non-additive variance. Overall, we show how different underlying factors impact how well methods leverage non-additivity for polygenic prediction.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 4
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Performance of deep-learning based approaches to improve polygenic scores
Martin Kelemen, Yu Xu, … Michael Inouye·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Jun 2, 2025
- Delphi: Deep Learning for Polygenic Risk Prediction
Costa Georgantas, Zoltán Kutalik, Jonas Richiardi·medRxiv·Apr 19, 2024
- DROP-DEEP: Dimensionality Reduction for Polygenic Risk Score Using Deep Learning Approach
Hadasa Kaufman, Yarden Hochenberg, … Nadav Rappoport·medRxiv·May 1, 2024
- Benchmarking non-additive genetic effects on polygenic prediction and machine learning-based approaches
Nathaniel Y. Bell, Douglas P. Wightman, … Daniëlle Posthuma·medRxiv·Oct 10, 2025
- Improved prediction of blood biomarkers using deep learning
Arnor Ingi Sigurdsson, Kirstine Ravn, … Simon Rasmussen·medRxiv·Oct 27, 2022
- Using Local Genetic Correlation Improves Polygenic Score Prediction Across Traits
Oliver Pain, Cathryn M. Lewis·bioRxiv·Mar 10, 2022