Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Genetics

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Polygenic and proteomic risk scores are both proposed for pre-symptomatic stratification, yet the extent to which they provide overlapping or complementary information has not been measured across neurodegenerative disease. To quantify this overlap, we define absorption as the fraction of a polygenic scores predictive contribution accounted for by an out-of-fold proteomic score and estimate it among 9,434 to 9,820 UK Biobank participants. Absorption did not track h2, as Alzheimers with APOE, Alzheimers without APOE and Parkinsons carried matched SNP h2 of 0.068, 0.061 and 0.069 yet absorbed 0.73, 0.39 and 0.19, with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at 0.22. Residual genetic signal remained in all four, indicating that proteomic risk scores did not fully capture the predictive information contained in polygenic risk scores. The proteins associated with a polygenic score and the proteins a proteomic score selects overlap no more often than chance, converging only where APOE dominates. Across 33 plasma co-expression modules built in 41,358 disease-free participants, germline signal concentrates in modules rather than spreading, with the summary component of seven modules associated with the score for Alzheimers with APOE and none for Parkinsons, even though Parkinsons carries the lysosomal genetic architecture that the lysosomal module M32 encodes. This module has 89% of its members associated with AD germline risk yet none was used by the proteomic score. Rebuilding the co-expression modules in All of Us gave an adjusted Rand index of 0.582 against the 0.686 attainable within that cohort, and 29 of 33 modules stayed together above a permutation null. Cross-cohort transferability was predictable from module coherence in the discovery cohort, supporting the reuse of this module partition as a fixed reference dictionary.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study found that polygenic and proteomic risk scores for neurodegenerative diseases overlap no more often than chance except where APOE dominates, and that genetic signal concentrates in specific plasma co-expression modules. It concerns risk score methodology, not treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 0 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 21 of the 94 points it could be judged on, which is 22 of 100. Raw total 22 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 22 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 22 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 21 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 22 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint))
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 0 / 7 Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Dokyoon Kim: h-index 27 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University of Pennsylvania: institution h-index 1,859 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 21 / 94 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 22 out of 100.
Total 22 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Zheng, C., Shivakumar, M., Shen, L., & Kim, D. (2026). Absorption and Co-expression Modules Show Where Polygenic and Proteomic Risk Scores Diverge in Neurodegenerative Diseases. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.24.26361271

Vancouver

Zheng C, Shivakumar M, Shen L, Kim D. Absorption and Co-expression Modules Show Where Polygenic and Proteomic Risk Scores Diverge in Neurodegenerative Diseases. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.08.24.26361271.

BibTeX

@article{zheng2026-e4fc5f6b,
  author  = {Zheng, C. and Shivakumar, M. and Shen, L. and Kim, D.},
  title   = {{Absorption and Co-expression Modules Show Where Polygenic and Proteomic Risk Scores Diverge in Neurodegenerative Diseases}},
  journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.64898/2026.08.24.26361271},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.24.26361271}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Genetics

Similar studies

More on Genetics

See all studies in Genetics →