Hybrid risk scores integrating polygenic and clinical variables for endometriosis prediction

Abstract Background: Endometriosis affects approximately 10% of reproductive-age women and is associated with substantial diagnostic delay and heterogeneous symptom presentation. Prior machine-learning prediction models have relied on comorbidity data alone or on small candidate-variant genetic scores, with inconsistent or incompletely reported performance. No study has combined a well-powered, multi-ancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) with environmental, reproductive, and symptom data in a single hybrid model. We developed and evaluated hybrid risk-prediction models integrating a genome-wide, multi-ancestry PRS with clinical and symptom data for endometriosis in the US-based All of Us Research Program. Methods: Among 69,376 participants (15,382 endometriosis cases, 53,994 controls) across six genetically inferred ancestry groups, we computed individual-level PRS values using PRS-CS weights derived from an independent, multi-ancestry GWAS. Five nested logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost models progressively added age, ancestry, and within-ancestry genetic principal components (Model 1), environmental and reproductive factors (Model 2), symptom and comorbidity indicators (Model 3), all covariates combined (Model 4), and PRS x environment interactions (Model 5). Performance was assessed by AUROC in a held-out test set and 5-fold cross-validation, with class-weighted, Youden-optimized thresholds used for sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values; permutation importance identified top contributors. Pairwise AUROC differences were tested with a Holm-corrected DeLong-type test. Results: Discrimination improved from AUROC 0.63 (PRS, age, ancestry, principal components) to 0.72 for the full model, driven mainly by symptom and comorbidity data. XGBoost consistently outperformed logistic regression and random forest. The PRS ranked among the top individual predictors by permutation importance in nearly every model, alongside age, while genetic and demographic information alone gave only modest discrimination, and PRS x environment interactions did not improve on environmental factors alone. Threshold optimization yielded balanced sensitivity and specificity (~0.67/0.65) versus near-zero sensitivity at a default threshold. Conclusions: Combining the PRS with symptom and comorbidity data gave the best discrimination compared to solely a well-powered, multi-ancestry PRS as a predictor of endometriosis. This study clarifies both the promise and current limits of hybrid genetic-clinical prediction for endometriosis and points to symptom-based phenotyping, molecular subtyping, and external validation as priorities. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: All of Us Researcher Workbench (https://workbench.researchallofus.org) I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data Availability This study used individual level data from the AoU Research Program, which are not publicly downloadable. De identified electronic health record and survey data can be accessed by approved researchers through the AoU Researcher Workbench (https://workbench.researchallofus.org) after institutional registration, completion of the required training, and agreement to the Data User Code of Conduct. All derived summary data resulting from the analyses are provided in the Supplementary material accompanying this manuscript.