Cited by 2,953Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenomics and Rare Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 18 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

A key public health need is to identify individuals at high risk for a given disease to enable enhanced screening or preventive therapies. Because most common diseases have a genetic component, one important approach is to stratify individuals based on inherited DNA variation1. Proposed clinical applications have largely focused on finding carriers of rare monogenic mutations at several-fold increased risk. Although most disease risk is polygenic in nature2–5, it has not yet been possible to use polygenic predictors to identify individuals at risk comparable to monogenic mutations. Here, we develop and validate genome-wide polygenic scores for five common diseases. The approach identifies 8.0, 6.1, 3.5, 3.2, and 1.5% of the population at greater than threefold increased risk for coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and breast cancer, respectively. For coronary artery disease, this prevalence is 20-fold higher than the carrier frequency of rare monogenic mutations conferring comparable risk6. We propose that it is time to contemplate the inclusion of polygenic risk prediction in clinical care, and discuss relevant issues. Genome-wide polygenic risk scores derived from GWAS data for five common diseases can identify subgroups of the population with risk approaching or exceeding that of a monogenic mutation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

25 Own result · 10 Not checked yet · 7 Own method · 3 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given

Verify all 18 references — free account

Show all 33 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 8
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 6
14 of 14
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The vast majority of common disease occurs in individuals without rare monogenic mutations.

    “Although ascertainment of monogenic mutations can be highly relevant for carriers and their families, the vast majority of disease occurs in those without such mutations.”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,006

Metadata

Authors
Khera, A. V., Chaffin, M., Aragam, K. G., Haas, M. E., Roselli, C., Choi, S. H., Natarajan, P., Lander, E. S., Lubitz, S. A., Ellinor, P. T., & Kathiresan, S.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Kathiresan, Sekar
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2018-08-13
Volume
50
Issue
9
Pages
1219-1224
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2886752110
Cited by
2,953
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 276 · 2025: 290 · 2024: 363 · 2023: 362 · 2022: 433 · 2021: 411 · 2020: 451 · 2019: 307 · 2018: 57
FWCI
189.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PMC
Funders
  • Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (2014105)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (HL007208)
  • Harvard Catalyst (TR001100)
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals
  • KR Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR001100, HL0-07734, HL007208, T32-HL007734)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL127564, HL007208, HL127564, R01HL128914, T-32HL007734, K08HL140203, HL007734, K23HL114724, K24HL105780, R01HL142711, R01HL092577, T32HL007208, R01HL139731)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (UM1HG008895)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
polygenic risk score, monogenic mutations, common diseases, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, breast cancer, high-risk individuals, clinical risk stratification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Risk Factors, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Multifactorial Inheritance, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review