The future of polygenic risk scores looks bright. But does it? Responsible use starts with getting real about the predictive ability and utility. And getting the science right first. nature.com/articles/s4159…
@cecilejanssens Noted by the authors as the first research gap to be filled.
@GENES_PK Yes, but how long can you keep saying that? It's already clear for years where the promising applications will be. Pretending that CAD PRS is promising is laughable ... disappointing, and misleading.
@cecilejanssens The framework the authors lay out for possible use cases and what needs to be evaluated, what individual and societal risks need to be ameliorated for PRS to be deemed beneficial is sensible. [1/2]
@cecilejanssens Readers can disagree whether we currently know enough about a particular setting to determine whether PRS are worth adopting, and they may have doubts about future utility. But there are some settings I would not dismiss as “laughable”—I count CAD among those. [2/2]
@GENES_PK I'm curious: which study makes you optimistic about CAD PRS?
@GENES_PK @cecilejanssens I want @AmDiabetesAssn to give their stamp of approval for fasting blood insulin. Skip slogans about prevention? We have a blood test. Catch the multitude of phenotypes before the damage occurs? Before the heart attack/stroke/loss of vision?