ArticleResearch square2025
Evaluating the Impact of Family History and Polygenic Risk Scores on Cardiometabolic Disease Risk.
Article in Research square, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. While both family history (FH) and polygenic risk scores (PRS) are predictive of CMD risk, few studies have systematically evaluated their independent and joint effects. This study aimed to quantify the individual contributions of FH and PRS, as well as their combined impact on CMD risk. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 105,633 adults from the All of Us Research Program with available genotypic and FH data. CMDs including type 2 diabetes (T2D), obesity, hypertension (HTN), and coronary artery disease (CAD) were ascertained from electronic health records. FH was derived from self-reported survey responses, and family history scores (FHS) were constructed by weighting the number and degree of affected relatives. PRSs were computed using validated multi-ancestry PRS weights from the PGS catalog. Logistic regression was used to assess associations of FH, FHS and PRS independently and jointly with CMD. We also tested for FHS × PRS interactions and conducted mediation analysis to quantify the proportion of the FHS effect mediated by PRS. Results: Positive FH was significantly associated with increased risk of all CMDs, with the strongest effect observed for obesity (OR: 2.09, 95% CI: 2.01-2.16). FHS showed the strongest association with T2D (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.38-1.42). Higher PRS values were also associated with elevated disease risk, most strongly for T2D (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 2.18-2.33). A statistically significant interaction between FHS and PRS was observed for obesity (p = < 0.001). A composite variable combining FH and PRS revealed a stepwise increase in disease odds across risk categories. Mediation analysis indicated that PRS accounted for between 13-17% of the total effect of FHS across all traits. Conclusions: Both FH and PRS are associated with CMD risk and provide complementary but distinct insights into disease risk. PRS adds predictive value beyond FH and partially mediates its effect. Integration of both measures may enhance risk stratification and guide precision prevention strategies.
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.