Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816027›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2023

Ethical layering in AI-driven polygenic risk scores-New complexities, new challenges.

Marie-Christine Fritzsche, Kaya Akyüz, Mónica Cano Abadía, Stuart McLennan, Pekka Marttinen, Michaela Th Mayrhofer, Alena M Buyx

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Marie-Christine FritzscheInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Kaya AkyüzBiobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium - European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC), Graz, Austria.
Mónica Cano AbadíaBiobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium - European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC), Graz, Austria.
Stuart McLennanInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Pekka MarttinenHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland.
Michaela Th MayrhoferBiobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium - European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC), Graz, Austria.
Alena M BuyxInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Technical University of Munich · DEBiobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium · ATAalto University · FIUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers aim to develop polygenic risk scores as a tool to prevent and more effectively treat serious diseases, disorders and conditions such as breast cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. Recently, machine learning techniques, in particular deep neural networks, have been increasingly developed to create polygenic risk scores using electronic health records as well as genomic and other health data. While the use of artificial intelligence for polygenic risk scores may enable greater accuracy, performance and prediction, it also presents a range of increasingly complex ethical challenges. The ethical and social issues of many polygenic risk score applications in medicine have been widely discussed. However, in the literature and in practice, the ethical implications of their confluence with the use of artificial intelligence have not yet been sufficiently considered. Based on a comprehensive review of the existing literature, we argue that this stands in need of urgent consideration for research and subsequent translation into the clinical setting. Considering the many ethical layers involved, we will first give a brief overview of the development of artificial intelligence-driven polygenic risk scores, associated ethical and social implications, challenges in artificial intelligence ethics, and finally, explore potential complexities of polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence. We point out emerging complexity regarding fairness, challenges in building trust, explaining and understanding artificial intelligence and polygenic risk scores as well as regulatory uncertainties and further challenges. We strongly advocate taking a proactive approach to embedding ethics in research and implementation processes for polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence–AIdeep neural network (DNN)ethicalgenomicsmachine learning (ML)polygenic risk scorepredictive medicinestratification

Identifiers

PMID36816027
PMCPMC9933509
OpenAlexW4318049710

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.