ArticleBMC medicine2026
Evaluating the impact of family history and polygenic risk scores on cardiometabolic disease risk.
Article in BMC medicine, 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.
- Validation of self-reported family history of myocardial infarction using nationwide health care data.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. While both family history (FH) and polygenic risk scores (PRS) are predictive of CMD risk, few studies have systematically evaluated their independent and joint effects. This study aimed to quantify the individual contributions of FH and PRS, as well as their combined impact on CMD risk.
methodsWe conducted an analysis of more than 120,000 adults from the All of Us Research Program with available genotypic, phenotypic, and FH data. CMDs including type 2 diabetes (T2D), obesity, hypertension (HTN), and coronary artery disease (CAD) were ascertained from electronic health records. FH was derived from self-reported survey responses, and family history scores (FHS) were constructed by weighting the number and degree of affected relatives. PRSs were computed using validated multi-ancestry PRS weights from the PGS catalog. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess associations of FH, FHS, and PRS independently and jointly with CMD in the overall cohort and stratified by genetic ancestry. We also tested for FHS × PRS interactions and conducted mediation analysis.
resultsPositive FH was significantly associated with increased risk of all CMDs, with the strongest effect observed for obesity (HR 2.07, 95% CI: 2.02-2.12). FHS showed the strongest association with T2D (HR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.32-1.37). Higher PRS values were also associated with elevated disease risk, most strongly for T2D (HR 2.13, 95% CI: 2.07 -2.18). FHS and PRS associations were attenuated in the African ancestry population. A statistically significant interaction between FHS and PRS was observed for obesity (p < 0.001). Individuals with a positive FH and high PRS have greater than 2.5-fold risk of developing CMDs compared to those with negative FH and an intermediate PRS. Mediation analysis indicated that PRS accounted for between 13 and 16% of the total effect of FHS across all traits.
conclusionsBoth FH and PRS are associated with CMD risk and provide complementary but distinct insights into disease risk. PRS adds predictive value beyond FH and partially mediates its effect. Integration of both measures may enhance risk stratification and guide precision prevention strategies.
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.