ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2009
Using lifetime risk estimates in personal genomic profiles: estimation of uncertainty.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing.Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers · 2013Trial
- PheSeq, a Bayesian deep learning model to enhance and interpret the gene-disease association studies.Genome medicine · 2024Article
- The importance of increasing population diversity in genetic studies of type 2 diabetes and related glycaemic traits.Diabetologia · 2021Review
- Genetic risks and clinical rewards.Nature genetics · 2018Article
- Role of a p53 polymorphism in the development of nonfunctional pituitary adenomas.Molecular and cellular endocrinology · 2017Article
- Genetic-based prediction of disease traits: prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.Frontiers in genetics · 2014Review
- Consistency of genome-wide associations across major ancestral groups.Human genetics · 2012Article
- Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: a case study and practical recommendations for “genomic counseling”.Journal of genetic counseling · 2012Article
- Perception of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic tests among members of a large managed care organization.Journal of genetic counseling · 2012Article
- Genotype-informed estimation of risk of coronary heart disease based on genome-wide association data linked to the electronic medical record.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2011Article
- Annotating individual human genomes.Genomics · 2011Review
- APOE and Alzheimer disease: a major gene with semi-dominant inheritance.Molecular psychiatry · 2011Article
- CoAIMs: a cost-effective panel of ancestry informative markers for determining continental origins.PloS one · 2010Article
- The emergence of translational epidemiology: from scientific discovery to population health impact.American journal of epidemiology · 2010Article
- Consent to 'personal' genomics and privacy. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests and population genome research challenge traditional notions of privacy and consent.EMBO reports · 2010Article
- Extending comprehensive cancer center expertise in clinical cancer genetics and genomics to diverse communities: the power of partnership.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personal genome tests are now offered direct-to-consumer (DTC) via genetic variants identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for common diseases. Tests report risk estimates (age-specific and lifetime) for various diseases based on genotypes at multiple loci. However, uncertainty surrounding such risk estimates has not been systematically investigated. With breast cancer as an example, we examined the combined effect of uncertainties in population incidence rates, genotype frequency, effect sizes, and models of joint effects among genetic variants on lifetime risk estimates. We performed simulations to estimate lifetime breast cancer risk for carriers and noncarriers of genetic variants. We derived population-based cancer incidence rates from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and comparative international data. We used data for non-Hispanic white women from 2003 to 2005. We derived genotype frequencies and effect sizes from published GWAS and meta-analyses. For a single genetic variant in FGFR2 gene (rs2981582), combination of uncertainty in these parameters produced risk estimates where upper and lower 95% simulation intervals differed by more than 3-fold. Difference in population incidence rates was the largest contributor to variation in risk estimates. For a panel of five genetic variants, estimated lifetime risk of developing breast cancer before age 80 for a woman that carried all risk variants ranged from 6.1% to 21%, depending on assumptions of additive or multiplicative joint effects and breast cancer incidence rates. Epidemiologic parameters involved in computation of disease risk have substantial uncertainty, and cumulative uncertainty should be properly recognized. Reliance on point estimates alone could be seriously misleading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.