ReviewAmerican journal of human genetics2024
Managing differential performance of polygenic risk scores across groups: Real-world experience of the eMERGE Network.
Review in American journal of human genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Polygenic Risk Scores for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in theCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2026Article
- Pervasive interactions between exposures and polygenic risk can inform more effective clinical and behavioral interventions.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of Ethical Issues in Precision Psychiatry: Mapping Unresolved Tensions Across Modalities.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the genome-informed risk assessment (GIRA) approach from eMERGE in an independent health system.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Recommendations for responsible use of population descriptors in polygenic risk score development.Nature genetics · 2025Review
- Age-Dependent Contributions of Rare and Common Genetic Variation in Atrial Fibrillation.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2025Article
- Ethical decision-making for AI in mental health: the Integrated Ethical Approach for Computational Psychiatry (IEACP) framework.Psychological medicine · 2025Review
- Promises and pitfalls of preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders: a narrative review.F&S reviews · 2025Article
- Association of Polygenic-Based Breast Cancer Risk Prediction With Patient Management.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Multiancestry transferability of a polygenic risk score for diverticulitis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Dual exposure-by-polygenic score interactions highlight disparities across social groups in the proportion needed to benefit.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- The Legal Uncertainties of Sociogenomic Polygenic Scores.Harvard journal of law & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The differential performance of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) by group is one of the major ethical barriers to their clinical use. It is also one of the main practical challenges for any implementation effort. The social repercussions of how people are grouped in PRS research must be considered in communications with research participants, including return of results. Here, we outline the decisions faced and choices made by a large multi-site clinical implementation study returning PRSs to diverse participants in handling this issue of differential performance. Our approach to managing the complexities associated with the differential performance of PRSs serves as a case study that can help future implementers of PRSs to plot an anticipatory course in response to this issue.
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.