ArticleJAMA network open2024
Public Attitudes, Interests, and Concerns Regarding Polygenic Embryo Screening.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of Polygenic Scores for Medical and Social Traits Among Biobank Participants and the Public.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2026Article
- Behavioral Genetics as a Public Science: Introduction to the Special Issue.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- Public perceptions of polygenic testing and embryo selection for non-medical traits.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Decision-making criteria in polygenic embryo screening: A survey of reproductive medicine physicians.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives on Psychiatric Polygenic Risk Scores in Reproductive Decision-Making and Polygenic Embryo Screening.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2026Article
- PEStimate: predicting offspring disease risk after polygenic embryo screening.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Modeling polygenic embryo screening in real-world IVF patients demonstrates limitations on efficacy.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Beyond the score: the imperative of comprehensive counseling in polygenic embryo screening.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Distinguishing social and medical traits: perspectives of scientists using polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Governance of polygenic embryo screening: a qualitative study on the perspectives of clinicians and patients.Fertility and sterility · 2026Article
- Imputing Parental Genotypes Through Mendelian Imputation: Ethical and Legal Considerations.Behavior genetics · 2026Review
- Ethical and social implications of implementing polygenic embryo screening into clinical care: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Review
- The new frontier in assisted reproduction : Consumer Desire vs. Regulatory and Ethical Precaution in AI-assisted Polygenic Embryo Screening.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Precautions for polygenic embryo selection: prohibition or cautious use.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Survey of U.S. reproductive medicine clinicians' attitudes on polygenic embryo screening.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Singaporean attitudes to cognitive enhancement: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Polygenic risk scores and embryonic screening: considerations for regulation.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- Preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders: Viewpoints of reproductive genetic counselors and reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists in the United States.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Promises and pitfalls of preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders: a narrative review.F&S reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is a novel technology that estimates the likelihood of developing future conditions (eg, diabetes or depression) and traits (eg, height or cognitive ability) in human embryos, with the goal of selecting which embryos to use. Given its commercial availability and concerns raised by researchers, clinicians, bioethicists, and professional organizations, it is essential to inform key stakeholders and relevant policymakers about the public's perspectives on this technology. Objective: To survey US adults to examine general attitudes, interests, and concerns regarding PES use. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this survey study, data were collected from 1 stratified sample and 1 nonprobability sample (samples 1 and 2, respectively) between March and July 2023. The surveys measured approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES. In the second sample, presentation of a list of potential concerns was randomized (presented at survey onset vs survey end). The survey was designed using Qualtrics and distributed to participants through Prolific, an online sampling firm. Sample 1 was nationally representative with respect to gender, age, and race and ethnicity; sample 2 was recruited without specific demographic criteria. Analyses were conducted between March 2023 and February 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants reported their approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES and outcomes screened (eg, traits and conditions). Statistical analysis was conducted using independent samples t tests and repeated-measures analyses of variance. Results: Of the 1435 respondents in sample 1, demographic data were available for 1427 (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [16.0] years; 724 women [50.7%]). Among these 1427 sample 1 respondents, 1027 (72.0%) expressed approval for PES and 1169 (81.9%) expressed some interest in using PES if already undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Approval among these respondents for using PES for embryo selection was notably high for physical health conditions (1109 [77.7%]) and psychiatric health conditions (1028 [72.0%]). In contrast, there was minority approval for embryo selection based on PES for behavioral traits (514 [36.0%]) and physical traits (432 [30.3%]). Nevertheless, concerns about PES leading to false expectations and promoting eugenic practices were pronounced, with 787 of 1422 (55.3%) and 780 of 1423 (54.8%) respondents finding them very to extremely concerning, respectively. Sample 2 included 192 respondents (mean [SD] age 37.7 [12.2] years; 110 men [57.3%]). These respondents were presented concerns at survey onset (n = 95) vs survey end (n = 97), which was associated with less approval (28-percentage point decrease) and more uncertainty (24 percentage-point increase) but with only slightly higher disapproval (4 percentage-point increase). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that it is critical for health care professionals and medical societies to consider and understand the perspectives of diverse stakeholders (eg, patients undergoing IVF, clinicians, and the general public), given the absence of regulation and the recent commercial availability of PES.
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.