ArticlePloS one2021
The limits of personalization in precision medicine: Polygenic risk scores and racial categorization in a precision breast cancer screening trial.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role of Polygenic Risk Score in Cancer Precision Medicine of Non-European Populations: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Pooled it
- A data model for population descriptors in genomic research.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Attitudes regarding polygenic risk testing for lung cancer: a mixed-methods study.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Article
- Scanning the horizon of personalized prevention research: an overview of ongoing European funded initiatives.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Recent advances in polygenic scores: translation, equitability, methods and FAIR tools.Genome medicine · 2024Review
- Treatment resistance NMDA receptor pathway polygenic score is associated with brain glutamate in schizophrenia.Schizophrenia research · 2023Article
- Ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic risk prediction for multifactorial disease: a narrative review identifying concerns about interpretation and use of polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Associations between polygenic risk score and covid-19 susceptibility and severity across ethnic groups: UK Biobank analysis.BMC medical genomics · 2023Article
- AI-driven risk scores: should social scoring and polygenic scores based on ethnicity be equally prohibited?Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization.Genome medicine · 2022Article
- "It's personalized, but it's still bucket based": The promise of personalized medicine vs. the reality of genomic risk stratification in a breast cancer screening trial.New genetics and society · 2022Article
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
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
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.