Table 4.
Cross-tabulation of polygenic risk score versus traditional risk score categorized in tertiles1
| Traditional Risk Score | Polygenic Risk Score, n (%) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tertile 1 (Lower Risk) | Tertile 2 (Average Risk) | Tertile 3 (Higher Risk) | Total | |
| Australia | ||||
| Tertile 1 (lower risk) | 223 (65) | 91 (26) | 30 (9) | 344 (100) |
| Tertile 2 (average risk) | 94 (27) | 160 (46) | 91 (26) | 345 (100) |
| Tertile 3 (higher risk) | 27 (8) | 94 (27) | 225 (65) | 346 (100) |
| Total | 344 | 345 | 346 | 1,035 |
| Leeds | ||||
| Tertile 1 (lower risk) | 244 (50) | 138 (28) | 104 (21) | 486 (100) |
| Tertile 2 (average risk) | 153 (31) | 209 (43) | 125 (26) | 487 (100) |
| Tertile 3 (higher risk) | 89 (18) | 140 (29) | 258 (53) | 487 (100) |
| Total | 486 | 487 | 487 | 1,460 |
1
Both models are adjusted for demographic and study design factors: age, sex, city of recruitment, and European ancestry.