ArticleNature communications2026
Three open questions in polygenic score portability.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embryo screening and the new reproductive divide.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the genome-informed risk assessment (GIRA) approach from eMERGE in an independent health system.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- CalPred yields calibrated intervals for polygenic risk prediction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Representation in genetic studies affects inference about genetic architecture.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Three open questions in polygenic score portability.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The European Health Data Space and biobanking in Europe: synergies, tensions and the future governance of data-driven health research.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Article
- Tradeoffs in Modeling Context Dependency in Complex Trait Genetics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A Litmus Test for Confounding in Polygenic Scores.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.