1. Shendure, J., Findlay, G. M. & Snyder, M. W. Genomic Medicine-Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise. Cell 177, 45–57 (2019).
2. GWAS Catalog. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/. Accessed July 21, 2021.
3. Meigs, J. B. et al. Genotype score in addition to common risk factors for prediction of type 2 diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 2208–2219 (2008).
4. Ripatti, S. et al. A multilocus genetic risk score for coronary heart disease: case-control and prospective cohort analyses. The Lancet 376, 1393–1400 (2010).
5. Zheng, S. L. et al. Cumulative Association of Five Genetic Variants with Prostate Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 910–919 (2008).
6. Boyle, E. A., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. An Expanded View of Complex Traits: From Polygenic to Omnigenic. Cell 169, 1177–1186 (2017).
7. Khera, A. V. et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet 50, 1219–1224 (2018).
8. Vilhjálmsson, B. J. et al. Modeling Linkage Disequilibrium Increases Accuracy of Polygenic Risk Scores. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 97, 576–592 (2015).
9. Inouye, M. et al. Genomic risk prediction of coronary artery disease in nearly 500,000 adults: implications for early screening and primary prevention. BioRxiv (2018) doi:10.1101/250712.
10. Conti, D. V. et al. Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction. Nat. Genet. 53, 65–75 (2021).
11. Klarin, D. et al. Genome-wide association analysis of venous thromboembolism identifies new risk loci and genetic overlap with arterial vascular disease. Nat. Genet. 51, 1574–1579 (2019).
12. Mosley, J. D. et al. Predictive Accuracy of a Polygenic Risk Score Compared With a Clinical Risk Score for Incident Coronary Heart Disease. Jama 323, 627–635 (2020).
13. Vassy, J. L. et al. Polygenic type 2 diabetes prediction at the limit of common variant detection. Diabetes (2014) doi:10.2337/db13-1663.
14. Seibert, T. M. et al. Polygenic hazard score to guide screening for aggressive prostate cancer: development and validation in large scale cohorts. BMJ 360, j5757 (2018).
15. National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. (2020).
16. Shieh, Y. et al. Breast Cancer Screening in the Precision Medicine Era: Risk-Based Screening in a Population-Based Trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 109, (2017).
17. Brockman, D. G. et al. Design and user experience testing of a polygenic score report: a qualitative study of prospective users. medRxiv 2021.04.14.21255397 (2021) doi:10.1101/2021.04.14.21255397.
18. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04331535 (2020). Accessed July 21, 2021.
19. Martin, A. R. et al. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nat Genet 51, 584–591 (2019).
20. Lewis, C. M. & Vassos, E. Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments. Genome Med. 12, 44 (2020).
21. Khera, A. V. et al. Whole-Genome Sequencing to Characterize Monogenic and Polygenic Contributions in Patients Hospitalized With Early-Onset Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 139, 1593–1602 (2019).
22. Dikilitas, O. et al. Predictive Utility of Polygenic Risk Scores for Coronary Heart Disease in Three Major Racial and Ethnic Groups. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 106, 707–716 (2020).
23. Hughes, E. et al. Development and Validation of a Clinical Polygenic Risk Score to Predict Breast Cancer Risk. JCO Precis. Oncol. 585–592 (2020) doi:10.1200/PO.19.00360.
24. Cancer Genetic Testing | AmbryScore | Health Risk Tests | Ambry Genetics. https://www.ambrygen.com/providers/ambryscore. Accessed July 21, 2021.
25. 23andMe. Our Health + Ancestry DNA Service - 23andMe. https://www.23andme.com/dna-health-ancestry/. Accessed July 21, 2021.
26. Chen, S.-F. et al. Genotype imputation and variability in polygenic risk score estimation. Genome Med. 12, 100 (2020).
27. Homburger, J. R. et al. Low coverage whole genome sequencing enables accurate assessment of common variants and calculation of genome-wide polygenic scores. Genome Med. 11, 74 (2019).
28. NIH funds centers to improve the role of genomics in assessing and managing disease risk. https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/NIH-funds-centers-to-improve-role-of-genomics-in-assessing-and-managing-disease-risk. Accessed July 21, 2021.
29. Lambert, S. A. et al. The Polygenic Score Catalog as an open database for reproducibility and systematic evaluation. Nat. Genet. 53, 420–425 (2021).
30. Fritsche, L. G. et al. Cancer PRSweb: An Online Repository with Polygenic Risk Scores for Major Cancer Traits and Their Evaluation in Two Independent Biobanks. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 107, 815–836 (2020).
31. Michailidou, K. et al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature 551, 92–94 (2017).
32. Mavaddat, N. et al. Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 21–34 (2019).
33. Huyghe, J. R. et al. Discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer. Nat Genet 51, 76–87 (2019).
34. Schumacher, F. R. et al. Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci. Nat. Genet. 50, 928–936 (2018).
35. Boutin, N. et al. The Information Technology Infrastructure for the Translational Genomics Core and the Partners Biobank at Partners Personalized Medicine. J. Pers. Med. 6, (2016).
36. Karlson, E. W., Boutin, N. T., Hoffnagle, A. G. & Allen, N. L. Building the Partners HealthCare Biobank at Partners Personalized Medicine: Informed Consent, Return of Research Results, Recruitment Lessons and Operational Considerations. J. Pers. Med. 6, (2016).
37. Yu, S. et al. Toward high-throughput phenotyping: unbiased automated feature extraction and selection from knowledge sources. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA 22, 993–1000 (2015).
38. Zou, H. The Adaptive Lasso and Its Oracle Properties. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101, 1418–1429 (2006).
39. Yu, S. et al. Enabling phenotypic big data with PheNorm. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA 25, 54–60 (2018).
40. Gainer, V. S. et al. The Biobank Portal for Partners Personalized Medicine: A Query Tool for Working with Consented Biobank Samples, Genotypes, and Phenotypes Using i2b2. J. Pers. Med. 6, (2016).
41. Blau, A., Brown, A., Mahanta, L. & Amr, S. S. The Translational Genomics Core at Partners Personalized Medicine: Facilitating the Transition of Research towards Personalized Medicine. J. Pers. Med. 6, (2016).
42. Das, S. et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat. Genet. 48, 1284–1287 (2016).
43. Delaneau, O., Zagury, J.-F. & Marchini, J. Improved whole-chromosome phasing for disease and population genetic studies. Nat. Methods 10, 5–6 (2013).
44. Libiger, O. & Schork, N. J. A Method for Inferring an Individual’s Genetic Ancestry and Degree of Admixture Associated with Six Major Continental Populations. Front. Genet. 3, (2013).
45. Senol-Cosar, O. et al. Considerations for clinical curation, classification, and reporting of low-penetrance and low effect size variants associated with disease risk. Genet. Med. Off. J. Am. Coll. Med. Genet. 21, 2765–2773 (2019).
46. Roberts, N. J. et al. The predictive capacity of personal genome sequencing. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 133ra58 (2012).
47. Goff, D. C. et al. 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation (2013) doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98.
48. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care 44, S15–S33 (2021).
49. Grossman, D. C. et al. Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Jama 319, 1901–1913 (2018).
50. Siu, A. L. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 164, 279–296 (2016).
51. US Preventive Services Task Force et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 325, 1965 (2021).
52. Kalia, S. S. et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet. Med. 19, 249–255 (2017).
53. Zook, J. M. et al. Extensive sequencing of seven human genomes to characterize benchmark reference materials. Sci. Data 3, 160025 (2016).
54. Loh, P.-R. et al. Reference-based phasing using the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel. Nat. Genet. 48, 1443–1448 (2016).
55. Chang, C. C. et al. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. GigaScience 4, 7 (2015).
56. Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinforma. Oxf. Engl. 25, 1754–1760 (2009).
57. Poplin, R. et al. Scaling accurate genetic variant discovery to tens of thousands of samples. http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/201178 (2017) doi:10.1101/201178.
58. Van der Auwera, G. A. & O’Connor, B. D. Genomics in the Cloud: Using Docker, GATK, and WDL in Terra (1st Edition). (O’Reilly Media).
59. MAQC Consortium. The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models. Nat Biotechnol. 28, 827-838 (2010).
60. Richards, S. et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. (2015) doi:10.1038/gim.2015.30.
61. Rivera‐Muñoz, E. A. et al. ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel experiences and standardized processes for disease and gene‐level specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for sequence variant interpretation. Hum. Mutat. 39, 1614–1622 (2018).
62. Bowling, K. M. et al. Identifying rare, medically relevant variation via population-based genomic screening in Alabama: opportunities and pitfalls. Genet. Med. 23, 280–288 (2021).
63. Weedon, MN, W. et al. Use of SNP chips to detect rare pathogenic variants: retrospective, population based diagnostic evaluation. BMJ 372, n214 (2021).
64. Scheuner, M. T., Edelen, M. O., Hilborne, L. H. & Lubin, I. M. Effective communication of molecular genetic test results to primary care providers. Genet. Med. 15, 444–9 (2013).
65. McLaughlin, H. M. et al. A systematic approach to the reporting of medically relevant findings from whole genome sequencing. BMC Med. Genet. 15, 134 (2014).
66. Davis, K. W., Hamby Erby, L., Fiallos, K., Martin, M. & Wassman, E. R. A comparison of genomic laboratory reports and observations that may enhance their clinical utility for providers and patients. Mol. Genet. Genomic Med. 7, e00551 (2019).
67. Farmer, G. D., Gray, H., Chandratillake, G., Raymond, F. L. & Freeman, A. L. J. Recommendations for designing genetic test reports to be understood by patients and non-specialists. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. EJHG 28, 885–895 (2020).
68. Wand, H. et al. Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies. Nature 591, 211–219 (2021).
69. Denny, J. C. et al. The ‘All of Us’ Research Program. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 668–676 (2019).
70. Kowalski, M. H. et al. Use of >100,000 NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) Consortium whole genome sequences improves imputation quality and detection of rare variant associations in admixed African and Hispanic/Latino populations. PLoS Genet 15, e1008500 (2019).
71. Lewis, A., Green, R. & Vassy, J. Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: Translating risk into action. HGG Adv. (in press).
72. Michailidou, K. et al. Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 47, 373–380 (2015).
73. Hughes, E. R. et al. Abstract P5-10-02: Development and validation of a polygenic score to predict breast cancer risk in unaffected Hispanic women negative for mutations on a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel. Cancer Res. 79, P5-P5-10–02 (2019).
74. Kurian, A. W. et al. Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) Model by race/ethnicity in the Women’s Health Initiative. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 1503–1503 (2020).
75. Myriad Genetics Recalibrates Breast Cancer PRS for All Ancestries in Anticipation of Broader Launch. https://www.genomeweb.com/molecular-diagnostics/myriad-genetics-recalibrates-breast-cancer-prs-all-ancestries-anticipation (2021). Accessed July 21, 2021.
76. AmbryScore discontinuation notice. https://info.ambrygenetics.com/take-a-brief-survey-for-entry-into-amazon-gift-card-drawing. Accessed July 21, 2021.
77. National Human Genome Research Institute. NIH awards $38 million to improve utility of polygenic risk scores in diverse populations. https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/nih-awards-38-million-dollars-to-improve-utility-of-polygenic-risk-scores-in-diverse-populations. Accessed July 21, 2021.
78. Manolio, T. A. Using the Data We Have: Improving Diversity in Genomic Research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105, 233–236 (2019).
79. Lewis, A. C. F. & Green, R. C. Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues. Genome Med. 13, 14 (2021).
80. Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) Diversity Consortium. Genome.gov https://www.genome.gov/Funded-Programs-Projects/Polygenic-Risk-Score-Diversity-Consortium. Accessed July 21, 2021.
81. ACMG Secondary Findings Working Group et al. ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. (2021) doi:10.1038/s41436-021-01172-3.