Evaluating the impact of modeling choices on the performance of integrated genetic and clinical models

The value of genetic information for improving the performance of clinical risk prediction models has yielded variable conclusions. Many methodological decisions have the potential to contribute to differential results across studies. Here, we performed multiple modeling experiments integrating clinical and demographic data from electronic health records (EHR) and genetic data to understand which decision points may affect performance. Clinical data in the form of structured diagnostic codes, medications, procedural codes, and demographics were extracted from two large independent health systems and polygenic risk scores (PRS) were generated across all patients with genetic data in the corresponding biobanks. Crohn’s disease was used as the model phenotype based on its substantial genetic component, established EHR-based definition, and sufficient prevalence for model training and testing. We investigated the impact of PRS integration method, as well as choices regarding training sample, model complexity, and performance metrics. Overall, our results show that including PRS resulted in higher performance by some metrics but the gain in performance was only robust when combined with demographic data alone. Improvements were inconsistent or negligible after including additional clinical information. The impact of genetic information on performance also varied by PRS integration method, with a small improvement in some cases from combining PRS with the output of a clinical model (late-fusion) compared to its inclusion an additional feature (early-fusion). The effects of other modeling decisions varied between institutions though performance increased with more compute-intensive models such as random forest. This work highlights the importance of considering methodological decision points in interpreting the impact on prediction performance when including PRS information in clinical models. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This work was supported in part by grant 1R01MH118233 from the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH). The dataset(s) used for the analyses described were obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's BioVU, which is supported by institutional funding, private agencies, and federal grants. These include NIH funded Shared Instrumentation Grant S10OD017985, S10RR025141, and S10OD025092; CTSA grants UL1TR002243, UL1TR000445, and UL1RR024975. Genomic data are also supported by investigator-led projects that include U01HG004798, R01NS032830, RC2GM092618, P50GM115305, U01HG006378, U19HL065962, R01HD074711; and additional funding sources listed at https://victr.vanderbilt.edu/pub/biovu/. We thank Mass General Brigham Biobank for providing samples, genomic data, and health information data. This work was conducted in part using the resources of the Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: IRB of Vanderbilt University Medical Center gave ethical approval for this work. IRB of Mass General Brigham gave ethical approval for this work. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript. Sharing of individual level data is restricted.