ArticleGenome medicine2016
Reclassification of genetic-based risk predictions as GWAS data accumulate.
Article in Genome medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guideline for feedback of individual genetic research findings for genomics research in Africa.BMJ global health · 2022Guideline
- The BabySeq project: implementing genomic sequencing in newborns.BMC pediatrics · 2018Trial
- Reclassification of prostate cancer risk using sequentially identified SNPs: Results from the REDUCE trial.The Prostate · 2017Trial
- Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- Polygenic risk scores: An overview from bench to bedside for personalised medicine.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Variable selection in social-environmental data: sparse regression and tree ensemble machine learning approaches.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- A Bayesian method to estimate variant-induced disease penetrance.PLoS genetics · 2020Article
- Returning a Genomic Result for an Adult-Onset Condition to the Parents of a Newborn: Insights From the BabySeq Project.Pediatrics · 2019Article
- WHY WE FEAR GENETIC INFORMANTS: USING GENETIC GENEALOGY TO CATCH SERIAL KILLERS.The Columbia science and technology law review · 2019Article
- Big data hurdles in precision medicine and precision public health.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Functional assessment of the BMPR2 gene in lymphoblastoid cell lines from Graves' disease patients.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2018Article
- Cancer Prevention and Treatment by Wholistic Nutrition.Journal of nature and science · 2017Article
- The genomic potential of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly and Statins in Reducing Events in the Elderly studies.Internal medicine journal · 2017Article
- Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Article
- Genomic sequencing in clinical practice: applications, challenges, and opportunities.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2016Review
- Towards precision medicine.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2016Review
- Clinical validity and utility of genetic risk scores in prostate cancer.Asian journal of andrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDisease risk assessments based on common genetic variation have gained widespread attention and use in recent years. The clinical utility of genetic risk profiles depends on the number and effect size of identified loci, and how stable the predicted risks are as additional loci are discovered. Changes in risk classification for individuals over time would undermine the validity of common genetic variation for risk prediction. In this analysis, we quantified reclassification of genetic risk based on past and anticipated future GWAS data.
methodsWe identified disease-associated SNPs via the NHGRI GWAS catalog and recent large scale genome-wide association study (GWAS). We calculated the genomic risk for a simulated cohort of 100,000 individuals based on a multiplicative odds ratio model using cumulative GWAS-identified SNPs at four time points: 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013. Individuals were classified as Higher Risk (population adjusted odds >2), Average Risk (between 0.5 and 2), and Lower Risk (<0.5) for each time point and we compared classifications between time points for breast cancer (BrCa), prostate cancer (PrCa), diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2D), and cardiovascular heart disease (CHD). We estimated future reclassification using the anticipated number of undiscovered SNPs.
resultsRisk reclassification occurred for all four phenotypes from 2007 to 2013. During the most recent interval (2011-2013), the degree of risk reclassification ranged from 16.3 % for CHD to 24.4 % for PrCa. Many individuals classified as Higher Risk at earlier time points were subsequently reclassified into a lower risk category. From 2011 to 2013, the degree of such downward risk reclassification ranged from 24.9% for T2D to 55% for CHD. The percent of individuals classified as Higher Risk increased as more SNPs were discovered, ranging from an increase of 5% for CHD to 9% for PrCa from 2007 to 2013. Reclassification continued to occur when we modeled the discovery of anticipated SNPs based on doubling current sample size.
conclusionRisk estimates from common genetic variation show large reclassification rates. Identifying disease-associated SNPs facilitates the clinically relevant task of identifying higher-risk individuals. However, the large amount of reclassification that we demonstrated in individuals initially classified as Higher Risk but later as Average Risk or Lower Risk, suggests that caution is currently warranted in basing clinical decisions on common genetic variation for many complex diseases.
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.