Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40233174›Full record

ArticleGenetics2025

Testing for differences in polygenic scores in the presence of confounding.

Jennifer Blanc, Jeremy J Berg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Quantifying direct genetic signal captured by principal component adjustment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A Litmus Test for Confounding in Polygenic Scores.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jennifer BlancDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, 920 E 58th St CLSC, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7569-018X
Jeremy J BergDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, 920 E 58th St CLSC, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5411-6840

Funding

Population genetic modeling of genetic variation for complex traits and diseasesR35GM151257 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Jeremy Jackson Berg · 2023 to 2026
$1.6M
Accurate and robust inference of mutational bias across complex traits and diseasesF31HG011821 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI BLANC, JENNIFER G · 2021 to 2023
$117k
NHGRI NIH HHS F31 HG011821NHGRI NIH HHS F31HG011821NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM151257NIGMS NIH HHS R35GM151257
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, GeneticMultifactorial InheritanceGenetics, PopulationGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansPhenotypeconfoundingpolygenic scorespopulation structure

Identifiers

PMID40233174
PMCPMC12135188

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.