ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022
Polygenic risk, population structure and ongoing difficulties with race in human genetics.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Within-sibling attenuation of polygenic risk score accuracy: investigating the effects of principal component analysis, LD score regression, and mixed model association in the UK Biobank.Human genetics · 2026Article
- A data model for population descriptors in genomic research.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Advancements in genetic research by the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos: A 10-year retrospective review.HGG advances · 2025Review
- Ethno-racial categorisations for biomedical studies: the fair selection of research participants and population stratification.Synthese · 2024Article
- Typological thinking in human genomics research contributes to the production and prominence of scientific racism.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- AI-driven risk scores: should social scoring and polygenic scores based on ethnicity be equally prohibited?Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
'The Apportionment of Human Diversity' stands as a noteworthy intervention, both for the field of human population genetics as well as in the annals of public communication of science. Despite the widespread uptake of Lewontin's conclusion that racial classification is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance', the biomedical research community continues to grapple with whether and how best to account for race in its work. Nowhere is this struggle more apparent than in the latest attempts to translate genetic associations with complex disease risk to clinical use in the form of polygenic risk scores, or PRS. In this perspective piece, we trace current challenges surrounding the appropriate development and clinical application of PRS in diverse patient cohorts to ongoing difficulties deciding which facets of population structure matter, and for what reasons, to human health. Despite numerous analytical innovations, there are reasons that emerge from Lewontin's work to remain sceptical that accounting for population structure in the context of polygenic risk estimation will allow us to more effectively identify and intervene on the significant health disparities which plague marginalized populations around the world. This article is part of the theme issue 'Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity'.
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.