lemonde.fr
Contradictory Polygenic Risk Scores Question Personalized Medicine's Future
A recent JAMA study revealed contradictory results from nearly fifty polygenic risk scores for coronary artery diseases, questioning their reliability for predicting genetic predispositions and impacting personalized medicine approaches.
- How does the rising popularity of GWAS, as evidenced by the increase in publications from 2007 to 2024, contrast with the unreliable results reported in the JAMA study?
- The study's findings contradict the growing trend of using genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to predict health outcomes and behavioral traits. The massive increase in GWAS publications from 16 in 2007 to nearly 5,000 in 2024 (Scopus database), highlights the widespread adoption of this method despite the current concerns raised about its accuracy. This calls into question the validity of GWAS for predicting health risks and other traits based on an individual's genome.
- What are the key implications of the contradictory findings from the nearly fifty polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease, and how does this affect current healthcare practices?
- A study published in JAMA on November 16th revealed contradictory predictions from nearly fifty polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease, leading researchers to question their reliability. The inconsistencies cast doubt on the use of these scores in preventative treatment decisions. This challenges the established belief in their predictive capabilities for various health outcomes.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of relying on potentially inaccurate polygenic risk scores for personalized healthcare, and what alternative approaches should be considered?
- The unreliability of polygenic risk scores could significantly impact the development of personalized medicine and psychosocial interventions based on genetic predispositions. The current study raises serious concerns about the accuracy and clinical usefulness of GWAS data, prompting a critical re-evaluation of existing predictive models and future research directions in this field. This could lead to a shift away from genetic risk prediction in healthcare and other areas.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and opening lines immediately establish a tone of skepticism and surprise, pre-framing the reader to view the research negatively. The use of quotes like "bullshit" further reinforces this negative framing. While the authors' skepticism is valid, presenting it so prominently shapes the interpretation of the study before presenting all the details. Later paragraphs, while more neutral, don't fully counteract this initial negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "contradictory," "playing dice," and "bullshit." These terms convey strong negative connotations and undermine the objectivity of the report. More neutral alternatives would be "inconclusive," "uncertain," and perhaps replacing 'bullshit' with a more academic term like 'questionable validity'. The repeated use of exclamation points also amplifies the negative tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the contradictory results of polygenic risk scores without sufficiently exploring the potential benefits or alternative interpretations of the research. While acknowledging limitations is important, the piece might benefit from including perspectives that support the continued use and development of these scores, perhaps mentioning ongoing research or successful applications in specific cases. Omitting these nuances risks presenting a one-sided view of the technology.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that the only options for using polygenic risk scores are either completely effective or entirely useless ('playing dice'). The reality is far more nuanced; scores may have limited predictive power, yet still offer valuable insights when used in conjunction with other clinical data and risk factors. This simplification oversimplifies the situation and may lead readers to reject the technology outright.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the contradictory and unreliable nature of polygenic risk scores for predicting coronary heart disease. This casts doubt on the accuracy and effectiveness of using genetic information for preventative healthcare, thus hindering progress towards improving health and well-being. The unreliability of these scores could lead to misinformed medical decisions and potentially ineffective or even harmful treatments.