ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Integrating genetic ancestry into clinical care: Accuracy, utility, and stakeholder views.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How to integrate genetic ancestry into clinical care remains unsettled. We assessed (i) agreement between two commercial ancestry providers, (ii) concordance between multiple ancestry algorithms and self‑identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) recorded in the electronic health record (EHR), and (iii) participant perspectives on accuracy, clinical utility, discrimination risk, and EHR integration. Using data from 451 adults in the UCSF 3D Health Study, we harmonized ancestry outputs to five continental categories and quantified cross‑provider agreement and ancestry–SIRE concordance at ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and ≥ 90% thresholds; we also analyzed survey responses from 166 participants. Mean agreement between the two commercial providers was 58.4% overall (95% BCa CI: 57.4–59.4%), differing by ancestry: 54.7% European, 73.1% Asian, 57.6% Mixed American, and 76.2% African (overall p = 3.2 × 10⁻²⁰). At ≥ 90% concordance with SIRE, algorithms varied substantially: 2.6% for Ancestry 1 (11/428), 80.1% for Ancestry 2 (353/441), 88.0% for Ancestry 3 (388/441), and 89.3% for Ancestry 4 (394/441). When stratified by SIRE group, European and Asian participants showed consistently high concordance for Ancestries 2–4, while African and Mixed American subgroups showed lower and more variable concordance across all methods. Surveyed participants were largely nondistressed (only 1.2% reported distress); 51.2% agreed ancestry reports are accurate and 50.0% agreed ancestry could support more personalized care, while 52.4% anticipated discrimination. Opinions on storing ancestry in the EHR were mixed (agree: 38.6%; disagree: 30.1%; neutral: 28.9%). Findings show vendor/algorithm choice strongly shapes ancestry outputs and alignment with SIRE. Community genetics programs should avoid treating ancestry as a proxy for race, adopt vendor‑aware workflows, and implement transparent consent and safeguards before linking ancestry to the EHR.
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.