ReviewAJOB empirical bioethics
Scanning the Horizon of Sociogenomics: an Assessment of the Development and Growth of Polygenic Indices for Social and Behavioral Traits.
Review in AJOB empirical bioethics. 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.
- Distinguishing social and medical traits: perspectives of scientists using polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- From Data to Harm: Exploring Ethical and Social Implications of Polygenic Scores for Social Traits.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, researchers are leveraging social science survey data and genomic samples from millions of biobank participants to develop polygenic indices (PGIs) for social and behavioral traits.
methodsThis article utilizes horizon scanning methodology to track academic and lay literature regarding PGIs.
resultsWe identified and coded 441 academic and 123 lay literature items, tracking the traits, sources of genetic and health data, and how each item discussed the harms, benefits, and limitations of sociogenomic PGIs.
conclusionThis in-depth review highlights variation in the portrayal of PGI research across academic and lay literature. Beyond simply elucidating what is being studied, and in which populations, this research shows how results are communicated, which messages are shown to academic and/or public audiences, and potential disconnects between how sociogenomic researchers and the lay literature describe the values and implications of the research.
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.