ArticleNPJ genomic medicine2025
Survey of U.S. reproductive medicine clinicians' attitudes on polygenic embryo screening.
Article in NPJ genomic medicine, 2025. 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.
- An introduction to polygenic scores - methodological basics and recent advances.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is used to screen embryos for their genetic likelihood of developing complex conditions and traits. We surveyed 152 U.S. reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) on their views of PES. While most respondents (97%) were at least slightly familiar with PES, general approval of PES was low (12%), with the majority expressing disapproval (46%) or uncertainty (42%). A majority (58%) believed risks outweigh benefits, while only 16% felt benefits outweigh risks. Most clinicians (85-77%) were very or extremely concerned about low accuracy, confusion over results, false expectations, and eugenics. Nonetheless, when asked to vote on whether PES should be allowed, 44% would vote to allow it, 45% would vote to disallow it, and 10% would abstain from voting. REIs showed more support for PES when used to screen for physical and psychiatric health conditions (59-55% approving) rather than behavioral or physical traits (7-6% approving).
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.