Key result
Socioeconomic position explained comparable or greater variance in cardiovascular disease risk factors relative to genetic characteristics, with full models explaining 3.7% to 14.3% of the variance.
Why the study?
Little evidence exists on the comparative predictive value of genetic factors versus social determinants of health to guide clinical and public health investments.
Does socioeconomic position explain comparable or greater variance in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared to genetic characteristics?
Observational (n=8,720)
Does socioeconomic position explain comparable or greater variance in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared to genetic characteristics?
Socioeconomic position explains comparable or greater variance in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared to genetic characteristics, highlighting the importance of incorporating social context into predictive models.
Low variance explained by genetic and socioeconomic factors in CVD outcomes cautions against over-reliance on either; leaves open major unmeasured determinants.
BACKGROUND: Efforts to explain the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) often focus on genetic factors or social determinants of health. There is little evidence on the comparative predictive value of each, which could guide clinical and public health investments in measuring genetic versus social information. We compared the variance in CVD-related outcomes explained by genetic versus socioeconomic predictors. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Health and Retirement Study (N = 8,720). We examined self-reported diabetes, heart disease, depression, smoking, and body mass index, and objectively measured total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. For each outcome, we compared the variance explained by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic position (SEP), and genetic characteristics including a polygenic score for each outcome and principal components (PCs) for genetic ancestry. We used R-squared values derived from race-stratified multivariable linear regressions to evaluate the variance explained. RESULTS: The variance explained by models including all predictors ranged from 3.7% to 14.3%. Demographic characteristics explained more than half this variance for most outcomes. SEP explained comparable or greater variance relative to the combination of the polygenic score and PCs for most conditions among both white and Black participants. The combination of SEP, polygenic score, and PCs performed substantially better, suggesting that each set of characteristics may independently contribute to the prediction of CVD-related outcomes. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department of Family & Community Medicine, UCSF. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on genetic inputs into personalized medicine predictive models, without considering measures of social context that have clear predictive value, needlessly ignores relevant information that is more feasible and affordable to collect on patients in clinical settings. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B879.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamad et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease risk factors (n=8,720). Socioeconomic position (SEP) vs. Genetic characteristics was evaluated on Variance explained (R-squared) in CVD-related outcomes. Socioeconomic position explained comparable or greater variance in cardiovascular disease risk factors relative to genetic characteristics, with full models explaining 3.7% to 14.3% of the variance.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: