Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38373998›Full record

ReviewGenome medicine2024

Recent advances in polygenic scores: translation, equitability, methods and FAIR tools.

Ruidong Xiang, Martin Kelemen, Yu Xu, Laura W Harris, Helen Parkinson, Michael Inouye, Samuel A Lambert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Polygenic risk scores in clinical applications - opportunities and challenges.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ruidong XiangCambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Martin KelemenCambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Yu XuCambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Laura W HarrisEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK.
Helen ParkinsonEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK.
Michael Inouye *Cambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. mi336@cam.ac.uk.
Samuel A Lambert *Cambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Strengthening community knowledge bases for genetic association studies and polygenic scores, the GWAS and PGS CatalogsU24HG012542 · NHGRI · EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY · PI Michael Inouye, Helen Elizabeth Parkinson · 2022 to 2026
$5.2M
British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946NHGRI NIH HHS 1U24HG012542-01NHGRI NIH HHS U24 HG012542Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polygenic scores (PGS) can be used for risk stratification by quantifying individuals' genetic predisposition to disease, and many potentially clinically useful applications have been proposed. Here, we review the latest potential benefits of PGS in the clinic and challenges to implementation. PGS could augment risk stratification through combined use with traditional risk factors (demographics, disease-specific risk factors, family history, etc.), to support diagnostic pathways, to predict groups with therapeutic benefits, and to increase the efficiency of clinical trials. However, there exist challenges to maximizing the clinical utility of PGS, including FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) use and standardized sharing of the genomic data needed to develop and recalculate PGS, the equitable performance of PGS across populations and ancestries, the generation of robust and reproducible PGS calculations, and the responsible communication and interpretation of results. We outline how these challenges may be overcome analytically and with more diverse data as well as highlight sustained community efforts to achieve equitable, impactful, and responsible use of PGS in healthcare.

Indexed as

CommunicationGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsHumansMultifactorial InheritanceRisk FactorsAccessibleAnd Reusable)Clinical utilityFAIR (FindableGenome-wide association studies (GWAS)InteroperableOpen-accessPolygenic score (PGS)Responsible useTransferability

Identifiers

PMID38373998
PMCPMC10875792

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.