ArticleChild psychiatry and human development2025
Navigating the Future of Polygenic Risk Scores: Insights from Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists.
Article in Child psychiatry and human development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are a method of calculating genetic risk for polygenic, or multi-gene, disorders. These scores have potential impacts in the realm of child and adolescent psychiatry, given the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders among youth. However, there are concerns about PRS implementation among key stakeholders, namely child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP). We conducted interviews with 29 U.S.-based CAP to investigate clinician attitudes toward the use of PRS. The data herein correspond to a future scenario we provided CAP in which PRS are accurate and portable to patients of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. We found that CAP envisioned some utility for PRS in regards to clinical surveillance and treatment; however, several desired further research demonstrating that PRS positively impact patient outcomes before they would consider implementing PRS in-clinic. The most cited concern about PRS deployment was the potential for misinterpretation and misuse of PRS on the part of patients, families, corporate entities, and clinicians themselves. CAP emphasized the need for support in the form of testing infrastructure, clinical guidelines, and collaboration with the involvement of PRS experts, when considering PRS applications in the future.
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.