ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2026
Perceptions of Polygenic Scores for Medical and Social Traits Among Biobank Participants and the Public.
Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 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.
- Distinguishing social and medical traits: perspectives of scientists using polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPolygenic scores (PGS) are used to investigate genetic predispositions for both medical and social traits. Their expanding application raises complex questions about data governance, societal impact, and research boundaries, particularly for biobank administrators who serve as custodians of the data enabling PGS research. Understanding the perspectives of biobank participants and the public on the development and use of PGS is essential for ensuring that governance and research practices align with participant values and societal norms.
methodsWe surveyed participants from one biobank (
resultsTrust in scientists was the strongest and most consistent predictor across all outcomes and respondent groups. The largest effect sizes appeared in attitudes toward PGS research on medical traits, with biobank participants showing an odds ratio (OR) of 3.26 (95% CI: 1.61-6.57) and public participants an OR of 4.60 (95% CI: 3.49-6.88). Biobank participants expressed greater endorsement of PGS for medical traits than public respondents, but both groups showed significantly less favorable views toward PGS for social traits. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that both groups, but especially biobank participants, hold clear reservations about applying genetic data to social outcomes. As biobanks increasingly support research beyond improving health outcomes, these results underscore the importance of transparent communication and participant engagement. Governance strategies must evolve alongside societal expectations to maintain public trust.
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.