Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 19;13:29. doi: 10.1186/s13073-021-00831-z

Table 3.

Association between quintiles of polygenic risk scores and carotid intima-media thickness in adult women (n = 781)

Polygenic risk score Cohorts of adult women Quintile of polygenic score Model 1 Model 2
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Test Pmodel 1 PQ Pmodel 2 PQ
PRSTC Cohort 1 0.0481 (0.0466–0.0497) 0.0496 (0.0482–0.0511) 0.0503 (0.0487–0.0520) 0.0501 (0.0486–0.0516) 0.0497 (0.0482–0.0514) Linear trend 0.0534 0.1003
Cohort 2 0.0481 (0.0450–0.0515) 0.0504 (0.0453–0.0561) 0.0529 (0.0479–0.0584) 0.0550 (0.0496–0.0610) 0.0512 (0.0479–0.0547) Linear trend 0.1032 0.0758
Meta-analysis 0.0182 0.3547 0.0315 0.2560
Cohort 1 0.0495 (0.0488–0.0503) 0.0497 (0.0482–0.0514) Top 20% vs others 0.6893 0.7445
Cohort 2 0.0518 (0.0493–0.0544) 0.0512 (0.0479–0.0547) Top 20% vs others 0.8236 0.9732
Meta-analysis 0.7591 0.7336 0.7667 0.8891
PRSTG Cohort 1

0.0499

(0.0485–0.0514)

0.0498

(0.0481–0.0515)

0.0491

(0.0475–0.0507)

0.0494

(0.0481–0.0507)

0.0498

(0.0480–0.0516)

 Linear trend 0.7416 0.7173
Cohort 2

0.0515

(0.0471–0.0563)

0.0514

(0.0481–0.0548)

0.0512

(0.0477–0.0549)

0.0542

(0.0457–0.0643)

0.0507

(0.0469–0.0548)

 Linear trend 0.6197 0.9116
Meta-analysis 0.6430 0.7068 0.7048 0.9963
Cohort 1 0.0495 (0.0488–0.0503) 0.0498 (0.0480–0.0516) Top 20% vs others 0.9536 0.9879
Cohort 2 0.0518 (0.0495–0.0542) 0.0507 (0.0469–0.0548) Top 20% vs others 0.4509 0.9879
Meta-analysis 0.8786 0.4574 0.9917 0.9849
PRSHDL Cohort 1

0.0512

(0.0497–0.0527)

0.0490

(0.0475–0.0505)

0.0496

(0.0479–0.0513)

0.0483

(0.0469–0.0498)

0.0498

(0.0482–0.0514)

 Linear trend 0.3786 0.3242
Cohort 2

0.0511

(0.0470–0.0556)

0.0542

(0.0466–0.0630)

0.0498

(0.0459–0.0539)

0.0532

(0.0491–0.0576)

0.0508

(0.0475–0.0542)

 Linear trend 0.9307 0.8528
Meta-analysis 0.4194 0.7165 0.3205 0.8838
Cohort 1

0.0512

(0.0497–0.0527)

 0.0492 (0.0484–0.0500) Bottom 20% vs others 0.0212 0.0160
Cohort 2

0.0511

(0.0470–0.0556)

 0.0518 (0.0495–0.0542) Bottom 20% vs others 0.4012 0.4524
Meta-analysis 0.0533 0.1286 0.0405 0.1373
PRSLDL Cohort 1

0.0481

(0.0467–0.0495)

0.0498

(0.0484–0.0513)

0.0489

(0.0475–0.0503)

0.0514

(0.0494–0.0536)

0.0495

(0.0482–0.0509)

 Linear trend 0.0485 0.0954
Cohort 2

0.0509

(0.0452–0.0574)

0.0516

(0.0458–0.0581)

0.0533

(0.0485–0.0585)

0.0545

(0.0504–0.0590)

0.0490

(0.0465–0.0517)

 Linear trend 0.9030 0.7916
Meta-analysis 0.0570 0.5840 0.0972 0.7430
Cohort 1 0.0496 (0.0488–0.0504)

0.0495

(0.0482–0.0509)

 Top 20% vs others 0.7463 0.7438
Cohort 2 0.0526 (0.0500–0.0553)

0.0490

(0.0465–0.0517)

 Top 20% vs others 0.2775 0.3636
Meta-analysis 0.9340 0.2564 0.9800 0.3328

Data are presented as geometric mean (95% CI) stratified by quintile categories of polygenic risk score. Intima-media thickness was natural log (ln) transformed. Pmodel 1 and Pmodel 2 values were obtained from linear regression with the adjustment for covariates included in models 1 and 2, respectively. Model 1: principal components and age. Model 2: principal components, age, body mass index, and systolic blood pressure. Results from individual cohorts were meta-analyzed using a fixed effects model. PQ refers to the p value of Cochran’s Q-statistics in heterogeneity test. Associations between PRSs and carotid intima-media thickness were examined in two different ways: (1) we examined a linear trend across the quintile categories. (2) We tested a hypothesis that a high PRS for TC, TG, and LDL-C (a low PRS for HDL-C) was associated with intima media thickness by comparing the top (bottom) 20% with the remaining 80% of the PRS distribution