ArticleScientific reports2022
Assessing agreement between different polygenic risk scores in the UK Biobank.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Greater value add from electronic health records than polygenic risk scores for predicting myocardial infarction in machine learning.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Reproducibility of genetic risk factors identified for long COVID using combinatorial analysis across US and UK patient cohorts with diverse ancestries.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Identifying and characterizing disease subpopulations that most benefit from polygenic risk scores.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Polygenic Risk Scores in Predicting Coronary Artery Disease in Symptomatic Patients. A Validation Study.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2024Article
- Managing differential performance of polygenic risk scores across groups: Real-world experience of the eMERGE Network.American journal of human genetics · 2024Review
- Future implications of polygenic risk scores for life insurance underwriting.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Review
- Impact of individual level uncertainty of lung cancer polygenic risk score (PRS) on risk stratification.Genome medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the importance of primary care diagnoses in the UK Biobank.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Epistatic Features and Machine Learning Improve Alzheimer's Disease Risk Prediction Over Polygenic Risk Scores.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Article
- Adjusting for population stratification in polygenic risk score analyses: a guide for model specifications in the UK Biobank.Journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- Polygenic scores in cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2023Review
- Combining machine learning with Cox models to identify predictors for incident post-menopausal breast cancer in the UK Biobank.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Polygenic Scores in the Direct-to-Consumer Setting: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Era in Consumer Genetic Testing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are proposed for use in clinical and research settings for risk stratification. However, there are limited investigations on how different PRS diverge from each other in risk prediction of individuals. We compared two recently published PRS for each of three conditions, breast cancer, hypertension and dementia, to assess the stability of using these algorithms for risk prediction in a single large population. We used imputed genotyping data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort, limited to the White British subset. We found that: (1) 20% or more of SNPs in the first PRS were not represented in the more recent PRS for all three diseases, by the same SNP or a surrogate with R
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.