Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 5.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Genet. 2022 May 5;54(5):573–580. doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01054-7

Figure 1: Overview of polygenic prediction methods.

Figure 1:

The predictive performances of three representative single-discovery methods: (i) LD-informed pruning and p-value thresholding (PT); (ii) LDpred2; (iii) PRS-CS; and five multi-discovery methods: (i) PT-meta; (ii) PT-mult; (iii) LDpred2-mult; (iv) PRS-CS-mult; (v) PRS-CSx are compared in this study. LDpred2-mult and PRS-CS-mult depicted here are not published methods but are helpful for comparing potential improvements from PRS-CSx that uses a coupled continuous shrinkage prior for the effect sizes of genetic variants. The discovery samples (to generate GWAS summary statistics), validation samples (to tune hyper-parameters in PRS construction methods) and testing samples (to assess prediction accuracy) are non-overlapping. LD ref: LD reference panel; pop A/B/C: Population A/B/C.