Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41587969›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Three open questions in polygenic score portability.

Joyce Y Wang, Neeka Lin, Michael Zietz, Jason Mares, Olivia S Smith, Paul J Rathouz, Arbel Harpak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational epidemiological studies can mitigate genetic confounding with a genetic relatedness matrix.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. CalPred yields calibrated intervals for polygenic risk prediction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Tradeoffs in Modeling Context Dependency in Complex Trait Genetics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. A Litmus Test for Confounding in Polygenic Scores.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joyce Y WangDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Neeka LinDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Michael ZietzDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0539-630X
Jason MaresDepartment of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Olivia S SmithDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Paul J RathouzDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Arbel HarpakDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. arbelharpak@utexas.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3655-748X

Funding

Making Genomic Prediction of Complex Disease EquitableR35GM151108 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI Arbel Harpak · 2023 to 2026
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM151108Pew Charitable Trusts Pew Biomedical ScholarshipU.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) R35GM151108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The broad adoption of polygenic scores (PGS) is hindered by their limited portability to people that differ-in genetic ancestry or other characteristics-from the GWAS samples used to construct them. Here, we measure PGS prediction accuracy as a continuous function of individuals' genome-wide genetic dissimilarity to the GWAS sample (genetic distance). Our results highlight three gaps in our understanding of PGS portability. First, variation in individual-level prediction accuracy is only weakly predicted by genetic distance. In fact, it is explained comparably well by socioeconomic measures. Second, trends of portability vary across traits. For several immunity-related traits, prediction accuracy drops near zero even at intermediate genetic distances-potentially reflecting fast evolutionary turnover of genetic variants associated with immunity. Third, even qualitative trends of portability can depend on how we measure predictive performance. For instance, for type 2 diabetes, precision remains roughly constant, while recall surprisingly increases with genetic distance. Together, our results show that portability cannot be understood through global ancestry groupings alone. Other, understudied factors influence portability, including the specifics of trait evolution, genetic architecture, social context, and the construction of the PGS. Addressing these gaps can aid in the development of PGS and inform more equitable applications.

Indexed as

Multifactorial InheritanceDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Genetic Risk ScoreGenetic VariationGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansModels, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID41587969
PMCPMC12835231

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.