ReviewNature reviews. Urology2026
Clinical translation of polygenic scores for prostate cancer screening.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and pilot testing of a prostate cancer polygenic risk report.BMC medical genomics · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interest in using polygenic scores (PGS) to improve the risk stratification for and early detection of prostate cancer is considerable. Despite the absence of clinical guidelines for the use of prostate cancer PGS in patient care, existing and emerging standards for the clinical translation and reporting of genetic testing generally and PGS specifically provide a relevant framework to help guide these efforts. This framework is intended to harmonize advances in the development of PGS clinical assays and standardization of PGS reporting in the context of prostate cancer PGS specifically. The analytical and clinical validity of prostate cancer PGS have been progressively refined, but evidence firmly establishing clinical utility beyond modelling studies is still lacking. Standardized approaches for designing, explaining and reporting prostate cancer PGS are key to accelerating clinical implementation in a manner that would increase access to the benefits of precision prostate cancer screening to patients across ancestry backgrounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41083778What 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.