ArticleJAMA psychiatry2026
Potential for Genomics to Help Guide Preventive Strategies in Psychiatry.
Article in JAMA psychiatry, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Psychiatric disorders are a major source of disability and premature mortality worldwide. Advances in genomics have clarified parts of their genetic architecture, prompting questions about whether genomic information can inform preventive strategies for psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. This Special Communication describes potential benefits and harms of using genomic information, particularly polygenic scores (PGSs) and rare variants, to guide prevention in psychiatry. Observations: Broad application of genomic testing in universal or selective primary prevention is not currently supported by evidence of net clinical benefit, given modest absolute risk differences, limited individual-level predictive performance, and the potential for psychological harm. The possible value of genomic testing increases for indicated primary prevention, as prior probability rises and diagnostic uncertainty becomes clinically relevant. The most compelling opportunity lies in early care after individuals enter the psychiatric treatment system but before diagnostic trajectories fully crystallize. In this zone of diagnostic uncertainty, testing for rare, high-impact variants can shorten diagnostic delays, inform prognosis, and guide monitoring and treatment, provided that results are communicated appropriately. PGSs may contribute to risk stratification when applied in high-risk clinical populations and integrated with nongenetic factors. In secondary and tertiary prevention, pharmacogenomics provides actionable benefits for medication choice and safety, and rare variant testing has clear value in selected instances. Beyond psychiatric outcomes, genomic testing could potentially help address the profound mortality gap in severe mental illness by identifying elevated risk for somatic comorbidities, thus supporting more proactive, integrated care. Conclusions and Relevance: Currently, genomic testing in psychiatry should not be used for population-wide screening but may have value as a targeted clinical resource whose utility depends on timing, context, and purpose. When applied judiciously and embedded within comprehensive, ethically grounded care pathways, genomic testing holds promise as one component of a more precise, preventive, and patient-centered psychiatry.
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.