ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2026
Decision-making criteria in polygenic embryo screening: A survey of reproductive medicine physicians.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePolygenic embryo screening (PES) examines embryos for their genetic likelihood of developing complex conditions and traits. The commercialization of PES places reproductive endocrinologists and infertility specialists (REIs) as the primary decision-makers in its use, despite professional guidelines cautioning that PES is not ready for clinical use.
methodsThis survey examines how 152 US REIs perceive and approach potential clinical decision-making scenarios regarding the use of PES.
resultsREIs were more likely to offer PES for medical conditions (up to 62% for cancer) than for traits (eg, 0% for skin color, 10% for body mass index). When evaluating 11 potential criteria to assess condition severity, clinical burden (eg, high mortality [80%]) was rated significantly higher than contextual burden (eg, low lifestyle modifiability [28%]); however, 82% to 93% of respondents considered each criterion at least slightly important. In hypothetical scenarios where PES rankings conflicted with embryo ploidy or morphology, only 8% preferred PES over ploidy, and 30% preferred PES over morphology. Still, 47% supported patient choice in morphology-based cases, and 30% supported patient choice in ploidy-based cases.
conclusionThese findings indicate skepticism toward PES, while underscoring the nuanced, context-dependent factors that influence its potential use.
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.