ReviewNature human behaviour2025
Psychological and behavioural considerations for integrating polygenic risk scores for disease into clinical practice.
Review in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blood pressure polygenic score, cardiorespiratory fitness and odds of dementia: the HUNT Study.Age and ageing · 2026Article
- Polygenic risk scores in clinical applications - opportunities and challenges.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026Article
- Clinical use of polygenic risk scores: current status, barriers and future directions.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Viewing direct-to-consumer genetic test results for depression risk is psychologically well tolerated: Evidence from a longitudinal equivalence study.HGG advances · 2026Article
- Interaction of identity and beliefs with genetic literacy.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Predictive Biomarkers for Asymptomatic Adults: Opportunities, Risks, and Guidance for General Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Toward personalized medicine in AD/ADRD through genetic-exposome dementia risk assessments.NPJ dementia · 2026Review
- The future of polygenic risk scores in direct-to-consumer genomics.Nature genetics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A polygenic risk score (PRS) summarizes in one number an individual's estimated genetic association with a specific trait or disease based on the common DNA variants included in the score. Disease PRSs have the potential to positively affect population health by improving disease risk prediction, thereby also potentially improving disease prevention, early intervention and treatment. However, given the potential psychological, behavioural and other harms, there are also concerns about integrating PRSs into clinical tools and healthcare systems. Here we assess five arguments against implementing PRSs for physical disease in clinical practice that revolve around psychological and behavioural considerations. For each argument, we consider a counterargument, the evidence and underlying theory, any gaps in the evidence base and possible future directions and research priorities. We conclude that, although there may be other barriers to implementation, there is currently little evidence of psychological or behavioural harms from integrating PRSs into practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40355674What 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.