ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Utility of Polygenic Risk Scores in Families with Exceptional Longevity.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
Introduction: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been used to assess an individual's risk for various diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). This study applied the PRS approach to a cohort of families ascertained for healthy aging, that have shown a reduced risk of AD. Using the SNPs identified as significantly associated with AD in the study by Kunkle and colleagues, we examined the utility of PRS for predicting AD risk in a cohort ascertained for familial healthy aging. Methods: We restricted the study to US LLFS study participants who have been evaluated for AD and have available whole genome sequencing (WGS) data. AD diagnosis was based on consensus diagnosis, and for those without consensus diagnosis, we used the algorithm based on standardized memory scores. PRS were calculated using a published weighted formula. To further examine the predictability of PRS, we assessed the relationship between PRS and AD biomarkers, including Aβ Results: We observed that PRS had limited predictive power for AD in this healthy aging cohort. Yet, allele frequencies for the SNPs used in PRS estimation differed between the two studies in a small number (9.7%) of SNPs, suggesting that the lack of effect of the PRS is likely to be due to the small number of AD associated SNPs (12.3% and 16.1%). Subsequent analysis observed no significant association between PRS and biomarkers. This was explained by the low number of SNPs significantly associated with each of the biomarkers. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of ascertainment of study population in interpreting PRS. In LLFS, a population at reduced risk of AD, PRS based on genetic variants identified from the general population may be inadequate to explain the variability in AD risk. Our results suggest that genetic risk variants, the basis of PRS, may need to be adjusted according to the study population of interest.
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.