Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37158703›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics

How do experts in psychiatric genetics view the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia?

Tiahna Moorthy, Huyen Nguyen, Ying Chen, Jehannine Austin, Jordan W Smoller, Laura Hercher, Maya Sabatello

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Tiahna MoorthyNYC Health + Hospitals/Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Huyen NguyenMount Sinai Services, New York City, NY, USA.
Ying ChenNew York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City, NY, USA.
Jehannine AustinPsychiatry and Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0338-7055
Jordan W SmollerPsychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Laura HercherSarah Lawrence College Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics, Bronxville, NY, USA.
Maya SabatelloMedical Sciences (in Medicine), Center for Precision Medicine and Genomics, Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4444-5389
Cal Humanities · USHarvard University · USJacobi Medical Center · USMount Sinai Hospital · USNew York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute · USSarah Lawrence College · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Center for Research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP50HG007257 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral GeneticsRM1HG007257 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2018 to 2021
$4.4M
Impact of Psychiatric Genetic Data on Civil Litigation and its Relationship with StigmaK01HG008653 · NHGRI · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI SABATELLO, MAYA · 2015 to 2019
$871k
NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG008653NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG007257NHGRI NIH HHS RM1 HG007257NHGRI NIH HHS RM1HG007257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are promising for identifying common variant-related inheritance for psychiatric conditions but their integration into clinical practice depends on their clinical utility and psychiatrists' understanding of PRS. Our online survey explored these issues with 276 professionals working in psychiatric genetics (RR: 19%). Overall, participants demonstrated knowledge of how to interpret PRS results. Their performance on knowledge-based questions was positively correlated with participants' self-reported familiarity with PRS (r = 0.21, p = 0.0006) although differences were not statistically significant (Wald Chi-square = 3.29, df = 1, p = 0.07). However, only 48.9% of all participants answered all knowledge questions correctly. Many participants (56.5%), especially researchers (42%), indicated having at least occasional conversations about the role of genetics in psychiatric conditions with patients and/or family members. Most participants (62.7%) indicated that PRS are not yet sufficiently robust for assessment of susceptibility to schizophrenia; most significant obstacles were low predictive power and lack of population diversity in available PRS (selected, respectively, by 53.6% and 29.3% of participants). Nevertheless, 89.8% of participants were optimistic about the use of PRS in the next 10 years, suggesting a belief that current shortcomings could be addressed. Our findings inform about the perceptions of psychiatric professionals regarding PRS and the application of PRS in psychiatry.

Indexed as

HereditySchizophreniaGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMultifactorial InheritancePolymorphism, Single NucleotideRisk Factorsclinical utilityethicsknowledgepolygenic risk scoresschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID37158703
PMCPMC10524148
OpenAlexW4375955469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.