ArticleGenetic epidemiology2026
Polygenic Risk Scores for Incident Dementia in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of polygenic risk in Alzheimer's disease prediction for African Americans.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Observational
- Integrating contextual determinants and polygenic risk to examine dementia and late-life cognition in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Risk score roulette: A cautionary tale of polygenic risk score reliability.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over 75 Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia-associated variants have been identified through genome-wide association studies, but the utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for predicting AD and dementia in diverse and admixed populations remains unclear. We compared how PRS approaches differing in p-value thresholds, variant weights, and source ancestry perform in predicting dementia in 6338 African American, Chinese, Hispanic, and White individuals from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. We tested clumping and thresholding (C+T) methods with varying parameters against Bayesian approaches (PRS-CS, PRS-CSx). We compared the ability of each method to predict incident dementia in all participants and in groups stratified by self-reported race/ethnicity. We additionally analyzed performance across groups stratified by estimated proportion of non-Finnish European (NFE)-like ancestry. Including more variants does not improve performance. We found comparable associations between dementia and PRS when comparing a C+T method with only 15 SNPs and PRS derived from Bayesian models that include > 800,000 SNPs (HR
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.