ArticleResearch square2025
Dissecting the Predictive Accuracy of Polygenic Indexes for Behavioral Phenotypes Across Genetic Ancestries.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic indexes (PGIs) trained on samples of European genetic ancestries often lose substantial predictive power when applied to non-European ancestries. While this portability problem is well recognized, its manifestation in behavioral and social traits remains understudied, and the factors driving this accuracy loss warrant more comprehensive analysis. Using data from the UK Biobank and Health and Retirement Study, we conduct a systematic analysis of PGI portability for 52 health-related, behavioral, and social phenotypes. We advance prior literature by using genome-wide PGIs, assessing cross-ancestry heritability differences, and comparing the performance of PGIs based on standard versus family-based GWAS. Our findings confirm systematic reductions in PGI predictive power for non-European ancestries-lowest in African (24%), followed by East Asian (37%) and South Asian (51%) genetic ancestries-with biologically proximal traits exhibiting greater portability than behavioral and social traits. We show that the relative importance of factors underlying reduced portability varies across traits and ancestries: in African ancestries, linkage disequilibrium and allele frequency differences explain most of the loss (82%), compared with smaller contributions in East (34%) and South Asian (25%) ancestries. Finally, we find that family-based GWAS PGIs can modestly improve portability for select traits, such as BMI in African ancestry, suggesting that part of the portability gap may reflect population-specific confounds in standard PGIs.
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.