Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23555274›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2013

Power and predictive accuracy of polygenic risk scores.

Frank Dudbridge

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05934058 (Interaction of Genomic and Dietary Aspects in Gastric Cancer Risk), which is not on this map. Cited by 904 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
904citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05934058 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Interaction of Genomic and Dietary Aspects in Gastric Cancer Risk: the Global StoP Project

TypeobservationalSponsorFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCSRan2023 to 2027Enrolled383,980ConditionsGastric Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

904 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Big data and psychiatry: advances, constraints and future directions.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Polygenic scores in psychiatric research and clinical practice.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

844 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Frank DudbridgeFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. frank.dudbridge@lshtm.ac.uk

Funding

Medical Research Council G1000718Medical Research Council MR/K006215/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polygenic scores have recently been used to summarise genetic effects among an ensemble of markers that do not individually achieve significance in a large-scale association study. Markers are selected using an initial training sample and used to construct a score in an independent replication sample by forming the weighted sum of associated alleles within each subject. Association between a trait and this composite score implies that a genetic signal is present among the selected markers, and the score can then be used for prediction of individual trait values. This approach has been used to obtain evidence of a genetic effect when no single markers are significant, to establish a common genetic basis for related disorders, and to construct risk prediction models. In some cases, however, the desired association or prediction has not been achieved. Here, the power and predictive accuracy of a polygenic score are derived from a quantitative genetics model as a function of the sizes of the two samples, explained genetic variance, selection thresholds for including a marker in the score, and methods for weighting effect sizes in the score. Expressions are derived for quantitative and discrete traits, the latter allowing for case/control sampling. A novel approach to estimating the variance explained by a marker panel is also proposed. It is shown that published studies with significant association of polygenic scores have been well powered, whereas those with negative results can be explained by low sample size. It is also shown that useful levels of prediction may only be approached when predictors are estimated from very large samples, up to an order of magnitude greater than currently available. Therefore, polygenic scores currently have more utility for association testing than predicting complex traits, but prediction will become more feasible as sample sizes continue to grow.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyHumansLinear ModelsModels, TheoreticalMultifactorial InheritancePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID23555274
PMCPMC3605113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.