ArticleGenetics2025
Testing for differences in polygenic scores in the presence of confounding.
Article in Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic insights into natural selection in recent human history.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Post-genome-wide association study variant-to-function challenges in asthma research.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2026Review
- Quantifying direct genetic signal captured by principal component adjustment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Clade distillation for genome-wide association studies.Genetics · 2026Article
- A Litmus Test for Confounding in Polygenic Scores.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Unifying approaches from statistical genetics and phylogenetics for mapping phenotypes in structured populations.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Genetic similarity between relatives provides evidence on the presence and history of assortative mating.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Revealing polygenic pleiotropy using genetic risk scores for asthma.HGG advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic scores have become an important tool in human genetics, enabling the prediction of individuals' phenotypes from their genotypes. Understanding how the pattern of differences in polygenic score predictions across individuals intersects with variation in ancestry can provide insights into the evolutionary forces acting on the trait in question and is important for understanding health disparities. However, because most polygenic scores are computed using effect estimates from population samples, they are susceptible to confounding by both genetic and environmental effects that are correlated with ancestry. The extent to which this confounding drives patterns in the distribution of polygenic scores depends on the patterns of population structure in both the original estimation panel and in the prediction/test panel. Here, we use theory from population and statistical genetics, together with simulations, to study the procedure of testing for an association between polygenic scores and axes of ancestry variation in the presence of confounding. We use a general model of genetic relatedness to describe how confounding in the estimation panel biases the distribution of polygenic scores in ways that depends on the degree of overlap in population structure between panels. We then show how this confounding can bias tests for associations between polygenic scores and important axes of ancestry variation in the test panel. Specifically, for any given test, there exists a single axis of population structure in the genome-wide association study (GWAS) panel that needs to be controlled for in order to protect the test. In the context of this result, we study the behavior of multiple approaches to control for stratification along this axis, including standard methods such using principal components as fixed covariates in the GWAS, linear mixed models, and a novel approach for directly estimating the axis using the test panel genotypes. Our analyses highlight the role of estimation noise in the models of population structure as a plausible source of residual confounding in polygenic score analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.