Abstract
PURPOSE: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) likely predict risk and prognosis of glaucoma. We compared the PRS performance for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes vs manual medical record review. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We identified POAG cases in the Mount Sinai BioMe and Mass General Brigham (MGB) biobanks using ICD codes. We confirmed POAG based on optical coherence tomograms and visual fields. In a separate 5% sample, the absence of POAG was confirmed with intraocular pressure and cup-disc ratio criteria. We used genotype data and either self-reported glaucoma diagnoses or ICD-10 codes for glaucoma diagnoses from the UK Biobank and the lassosum method to compute a genome-wide POAG PRS. We compared the area under the curve (AUC) for POAG prediction based on ICD codes vs medical records. RESULTS: We reviewed 804 of 996 BioMe and 367 of 1006 MGB ICD-identified cases. In BioMe and MGB, respectively, positive predictive value was 53% and 55%; negative predictive value was 96% and 97%; sensitivity was 97% and 97%; and specificity was 44% and 53%. Adjusted PRS AUCs for POAG using ICD codes vs manual record review in BioMe were not statistically different (P ≥.21) by ancestry: 0.77 vs 0.75 for African, 0.80 vs 0.80 for Hispanic, and 0.81 vs 0.81 for European. Results were similar in MGB (P ≥.18): 0.72 vs 0.80 for African, 0.83 vs 0.86 for Hispanic, and 0.74 vs 0.73 for European. CONCLUSIONS: A POAG PRS performed similarly using either manual review or ICD codes in 2 electronic health record-linked biobanks; manual assessment of glaucoma status might not be necessary for some PRS studies. However, caution should be exercised when using ICD codes for glaucoma diagnosis given their low specificity (44%-53%) for manually confirmed cases of glaucoma.