A Systematic Review and Analysis of the Use of Polygenic Scores in Pharmacogenomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic scores (PGSs) have emerged as promising tools for complex trait risk prediction. The application of these scores to pharmacogenomics provides new opportunities to improve the prediction of treatment outcomes. To gain insight into this area of research, we conducted a systematic review and accompanying analysis. This review uncovered 51 papers examining the use of PGSs for drug-related outcomes, with the majority of these papers focusing on the treatment of psychiatric disorders (n = 30). Due to difficulties in collecting large cohorts of uniformly treated patients, the majority of pharmacogenomic PGSs were derived from large-scale genome-wide association studies of disease phenotypes that were related to the pharmacogenomic phenotypes under investigation (e.g., schizophrenia-derived PGSs for antipsychotic response prediction). Examination of the research participants included in these studies revealed that the majority of cohort participants were of European descent (78.4%). These biases were also reflected in research affiliations, which were heavily weighted towards institutions located in Europe and North America, with no first or last authors originating from institutions in Africa or South Asia. There was also substantial variability in the methods used to develop PGSs, with between 3 and 6.6 million variants included in the PGSs. Finally, we observed significant inconsistencies in the reporting of PGS analyses and results, particularly in terms of risk model development and application, coupled with a lack of data transparency and availability, with only three pharmacogenomics PGSs deposited on the Polygenic Score Catalog. These findings highlight current gaps and key areas for future pharmacogenomic PGS research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".