ArticleNature communications2026
Comprehensive benchmarking single and multi ancestry polygenic score methods with the PGS-hub platform.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polygenic scores (PGS) quantify genetic contributions to complex traits, yet existing single- and multi-ancestry methods lack multi-dimensional evaluation within a unified framework. Here, we benchmarked 13 state-of-the-art PGS methods across 36 traits in UK Biobank European and African samples. The prediction performance, computational efficiency, the number of variants, and the impact of different linkage disequilibrium (LD) reference sizes were thoroughly assessed for each method. Results of single-ancestry methods demonstrate that LDpred2 has superior performance across a broad spectrum of complex traits in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency; however, other methods remain valuable for specific traits. For multi-ancestry methods, PRS-CSx and X-Wing have comparable performance, whereas LDpred2-multi outperforms both. Notably, we find that increasing the panel size of the LD reference significantly elevates PGS performance for sample sizes below 1,000, and it reaches a plateau when it exceeds 5,000 samples. Furthermore, implementing PGS calculation methods requires considerable technical effort and resource allocation. To support easy use of these PGS methods, we developed a user-friendly online computing platform, PGS-hub, that integrates all evaluated methods and is pre-configured with ancestry-stratified LD panels. This resource enables a scalable and harmonized PGS computation platform for the PGS community.
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.