Figure 3.

PRS-FH increases prediction accuracy in analyses of UK Biobank diseases

(A) Analyses without covariates. We report liability-scale R² for PRS alone, FH alone (FH_log and FH_liab), and PRS-FH methods (PRS-FH_log and PRS-FH_liab) for different diseases and target populations.

(B) Analyses with covariates. We report difference in liability-scale R² (see text) for the corresponding methods incorporating covariates (PRS⁺, FH⁺, PRS-FH⁺), for different diseases and target populations. Error bars denote standard errors; error bars are jittered for PRS-FH (left) and FH (right) for visualization purposes. We focus on three well-powered diseases with R² > 0.05 for PRS and/or FH in each target population (no additional criteria were applied). For depression in Africans, PRS-FH_log performs slightly worse than FH_log (difference in R² of −0.001 [p = 0.003 for difference] in analyses without covariates and difference in R² of −0.002 [p = 0.13 for difference] in analyses with covariates). Numerical results are reported in Tables S9 and S20.