Polygenic scores for social science: Clarification, consensus, and controversy.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Polygenic Indices (a.k.a. Polygenic Scores) in Social Science: A Guide for Interpretation and Evaluation.Sociological methodology · 2024
   Article
2. Infrastructuring Educational Genomics: Associations, Architectures, and Apparatuses.Postdigital science and education · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Tractable limitations of current polygenic scores do not excuse genetically confounded social science.2023
• Comment on
  Downward causation and vertical pleiotropy.2023
• Comment on
  Social scientists would do well to steer clear of polygenic scores.2023
• Comment on
  Polygenic scores, and the genome-wide association studies they derive from, will have difficulty identifying genes that predispose one to develop a social behavioral trait.2023
• Comment on
  Genomics might not be the solution, but epistemic validity remains a challenge in the social sciences.2023
• Comment on
  The failure of gene-centrism.2023
• Comment on
  Methodological question-begging about the causes of complex social traits.2023
• Comment on
  Burt uses a fallacious motte-and-bailey argument to dispute the value of genetics for social science.2023
• Comment on
  Don't miss the chance to reap the fruits of recent advances in behavioral genetics.2023
• Comment on
  Cognitive traits are more appropriate for genetic analysis than social outcomes.2023
• Comment on
  Taking a lifespan approach to polygenic scores.2023
• Comment on
  The value of sociogenomics in understanding genetic evolution in contemporary human populations.2023
• Comment on
  Often wrong, sometimes useful: Including polygenic scores in social science research.2023
• Comment on
  Misguided model of human behavior: Comment on C. H. Burt: "Challenging the utility of polygenic scores for social science…".2023
• Comment on
  GWASs and polygenic scores inherit all the old problems of heritability estimates.2023
• Comment on
  Polygenic scores ignore development and epigenetics, dramatically reducing their value.2023
• Comment on
  Increasing the use of functional and multimodal genetic data in social science research.2023
• Comment on
  Vertical pleiotropy explains the heritability of social science traits.2023
• Comment on
  Beware of the phony horserace between genes and environments.2023
• Comment on
  The challenges of sociogenomics make it more, not less, worthy of careful and innovative investigation.2023
• Comment on
  Polygenic risk scores cannot make their mark on psychiatry without considering epigenetics.2023
• Comment on
  The social stratification of population as a mechanism of downward causation.2023
• Comment on
  Complex interactions confound any unitary approach to social phenomena, not just biological ones.2023
• Comment on
  Polygenic scores and social science.2023

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

Indexed as