Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41264187›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2025

Polygenic risk scores in routine genetic diagnostics: what lies ahead?

Peter Lauffer, W van Weelden, M M van Haelst, Philip R Jansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Genetic Associations with Pectus Excavatum: A Systematic Review.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter LaufferAmsterdam UMC, Department of Human Genetics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.lauffer@amsterdamumc.nl.
W van WeeldenAmsterdam UMC, Department of Human Genetics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
M M van Haelst *Amsterdam UMC, Department of Human Genetics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Philip R Jansen *Amsterdam UMC, Department of Human Genetics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.jansen3@amsterdamumc.nl.

Funding

ZonMw 09150162210040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as a potential tool for predicting complex genetic traits and disorders, which may complement traditional rare variant testing. As genome-wide association studies (GWAS) expand, PRS predictive accuracy improves, yet its role in clinical genetics remains undefined. Here, we discuss four scenarios for PRS integration into diagnostic workflows: (1) PRS as a first-tier screen to stratify patients for rare variant testing; (2) parallel testing with whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to capture both rare and common variant contributions; (3) selection between PRS and rare variant testing guided by clinical characteristics; and (4) PRS application in rare variant-negative cases to identify likely polygenic etiologies. We highlight different trade-offs of each approach, which include costs, turnaround time, diagnostic efficiency, and risk of secondary findings. While PRS shows promise in conditions with both monogenic and polygenic contributions, challenges remain in defining risk thresholds, equal accuracy across (non-European) ancestries, and integrating PRS into clinical decision-making. Although not yet standard practice, we envision PRS is likely to play an increasing role in genetic diagnostics, necessitating collaboration between clinicians and laboratory geneticists to optimize its application.

Indexed as

Clinical geneticsComplex geneticsGenetic testingPolygenic risk scoresRare disease genetics

Identifiers

PMID41264187
PMCPMC12635013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.