ArticleJournal of global health2025
Influence and role of polygenic risk score in the development of 32 complex diseases.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene-Air Pollution Interaction in Cardiovascular Disease: Lights and Shadows in a Tangled Risk Factor Network.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Genetic Burden andJournal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Genomic innovations in cancer prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and precision therapeutics.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The polygenic risk score (PRS) has been perceived as advantageous in predicting the risk of complex diseases compared to other measures. We aimed to systematically evaluate the influence of PRS on disease outcome and to explore its predictive value. Methods: We comprehensively assessed the relationship between PRS and 32 complex diseases in the UK Biobank. We used Cox models to estimate the effects of PRS on the incidence risk. Then, we constructed prediction models to assess the clinical utility of PRS in risk prediction. For 16 diseases, we further compared the disease risk and prediction capability of PRS across early and late-onset cases. Results: Higher PRS led to greater incident risk, with hazard ratio (HR) ranging from 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-1.08) for panic/anxiety disorder to 4.17 (95% CI = 4.03-4.31) for acute pancreatitis. This effect was more pronounced in early-onset cases for 12 diseases, increasing by 52.8% on average. Particularly, the early-onset risk of heart failure associated with PRS (HR = 3.02; 95% CI = 2.53-3.59) was roughly twice compared to the late-onset risk (HR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.46-1.51). Compared to average PRS (20-80%), individuals positioned within the top 2.5% of the PRS distribution exhibited varying degrees of elevated risk, corresponding to a more than five times greater risk on average. PRS showed additional value in clinical risk prediction, causing an average improvement of 6.1% in prediction accuracy. Further, PRS demonstrated higher predictive accuracy for early-onset cases of 11 diseases, with heart failure displaying the most significant (37.5%) improvement when incorporating PRS into the prediction model (concordance index (C-index) = 0.546; standard error (SE) = 0.011 vs. C-index = 0.751; SE = 0.010, P = 2.47 × 10 Conclusions: As a valuable complement to traditional clinical risk tools, PRS is closely related to disease risk and can further enhance prediction accuracy, especially for early-onset cases, underscoring its potential role in targeted prevention for high-risk groups.
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.