Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34714858›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The limits of personalization in precision medicine: Polygenic risk scores and racial categorization in a precision breast cancer screening trial.

Jennifer Elyse James, Leslie Riddle, Barbara Ann Koenig, Galen Joseph

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A data model for population descriptors in genomic research.American journal of human genetics · 2025
    Review
  3. Attitudes regarding polygenic risk testing for lung cancer: a mixed-methods study.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jennifer Elyse JamesInstitute for Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6240-3487
Leslie RiddleDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Barbara Ann KoenigInstitute for Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Galen JosephDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.

Funding

Precision Genomics in the WISDOM Pragmatic Clinical Trial: An "Embedded" ELSI Study of Risk-based Breast Cancer ScreeningR01CA211999 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOSEPH, GALEN · 2017 to 2021
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA211999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population-based genomic screening is at the forefront of a new approach to disease prevention. Yet the lack of diversity in genome wide association studies and ongoing debates about the appropriate use of racial and ethnic categories in genomics raise key questions about the translation of genomic knowledge into clinical practice. This article reports on an ethnographic study of a large pragmatic clinical trial of breast cancer screening called WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of Risk). Our ethnography illuminates the challenges of using race or ethnicity as a risk factor in the implementation of precision breast cancer risk assessment. Our analysis provides critical insights into how categories of race, ethnicity and ancestry are being deployed in the production of genomic knowledge and medical practice, and key challenges in the development and implementation of novel Polygenic Risk Scores in the research and clinical applications of this emerging science. Specifically, we show how the conflation of social and biological categories of difference can influence risk prediction for individuals who exist at the boundaries of these categories, affecting the perceptions and practices of scientists, clinicians, and research participants themselves. Our research highlights the potential harms of practicing genomic medicine using under-theorized and ambiguous categories of race, ethnicity, and ancestry, particularly in an adaptive, pragmatic trial where research findings are applied in the clinic as they emerge. We contribute to the expanding literature on categories of difference in post-genomic science by closely examining the implementation of a large breast cancer screening study that aims to personalize breast cancer risk using both common and rare genomic markers.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerPrecision MedicineFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic Risk ScoreGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMiddle AgedMultifactorial InheritanceRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34714858
PMCPMC8555816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.