SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2026
The current state of polygenic scores for the development of lung cancer: a systematic review and validation in UK Biobank.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Should Sickle Cell Disease Be Considered a Cancer Predisposition Syndrome?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk-stratified lung cancer screening programs identify high-risk individuals who use tobacco but do not account for underlying genetic susceptibility. Many polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for lung cancer, but it is unclear which, if any, are suitable for identifying high-risk individuals in the general population.
methodsWe used a systematic review to identify published lung cancer PGS, which were implemented and validated in the UK Biobank (UKB) cohort. Performance (discrimination and accuracy) was compared. Subgroup analyses by sex, ethnicity, and smoking status identified differences across the population.
resultsWe identified 60 lung cancer PGS published since 2012. Most scores were associated with lung cancer risk in UKB. Of the 39 evaluated PGS, 33 had a hazard ratio per standard deviation greater than 1.1 and 22 had a C-index greater than 0.55. Most PGS perform better in individuals who use tobacco than those who do not, although for a small number of scores (n = 8) the reverse is true. DISCUSSION: Performance of lung cancer PGS is weak compared to scores for other cancers; the potential benefit of combining genetics with other risk factors for lung cancer remains unclear. Selection of a suitable score is context dependent and requires consideration of the characteristics of the target population (such as ethnicity and tobacco usage).
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.