The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos
Open accessAbstract
Companies have recently begun to sell a new service to patients considering in vitro fertilization: embryo selection based on polygenic scores (ESPS). These scores represent individualized predictions of health and other outcomes derived from genomewide association studies in adults to partially predict these outcomes. This article includes a discussion of many factors that lower the predictive power of polygenic scores in the context of embryo selection and quantifies these effects for a variety of clinical and nonclinical traits. Also discussed are potential unintended consequences of ESPS (including selecting for adverse traits, altering population demographics, exacerbating inequalities in society, and devaluing certain traits). Recommendations for the responsible communication about ESPS by practitioners are provided, and a call for a society-wide conversation about this technology is made. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“our results do not support any immediate medical or clinical applications, such as polygenic prediction in direct-to-consumer services49,50.”
From Shared genetic architectures of educational attainment in East Asian and European populations (2024) · cites this paper as [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities
Martin, A. R., Kanai, M., Kamatani, Y., Okada, Y., Neale, B. M., & Daly, M. J. (2019) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-019-0379-x · Cited by 2,821 · cited 1×
“When polygenic scores constructed from such studies have been tested on participants who were not of European ancestries, their predictive power was much lower.(10) Figure 1 shows the expected differences in educational attainment between the person with the highest polygenic score among 10 persons and a person select…”
BackgroundSelf-citation23andMe Research Team, Lee, J. J., COGENT (Cognitive Genomics Consortium), Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, Wedow, R., Okbay, A., Kong, E., Maghzian, O., Zacher, M., Nguyen-Viet, T. A., et al. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 · Cited by 2,470 · cited 1×
“The authors of a recent paper reported that according to current polygenic scoring for educational attainment, the prevalence of college completion is roughly 10% among persons in the lowest quintile and roughly 45 to 60% among those in the highest quintile.(6) Drawing on these differences, advocates have encouraged p…”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores
Torkamani, A., Wineinger, N. E., & Topol, E. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-018-0018-x · Cited by 1,655
Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments
Lewis, C. M., & Vassos, E. (2020) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-020-00742-5 · Cited by 1,360
A global overview of pleiotropy and genetic architecture in complex traits
Watanabe, K., Stringer, S., Frei, O., Umićević Mirkov, M., de Leeuw, C., Polderman, T. J. C., van der Sluis, S., Andreassen, O. A., Neale, B. M., & Posthuma, D. (2019) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-019-0481-0 · Cited by 1,332
Self-citationThe nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes
Kong, A., Thorleifsson, G., Frigge, M. L., Vilhjalmsson, B. J., Young, A. I., Thorgeirsson, T. E., Benonisdottir, S., Oddsson, A., Halldorsson, B. V., Masson, G., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan6877 · Cited by 949 · cited 1×
“Second, a sizeable portion of the predictive power of the polygenic score for persons from different families comes from “gene–environment correlation” — that is, persons with high polygenic scores are likely to be raised in family environments that promote educational attainment.(9) For example, such persons are like…”
BackgroundGenetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA.
Dar‐Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0021860 · Cited by 744 · cited 1×
“One particularly relevant misconception is “genetic determinism”: potential customers may expect that ESPS guarantees the outcome they want.(12) Furthermore, people tend to neglect variance,(13) and polygenic scores do not capture all sources of genetic variation.”
BackgroundTowards clinical utility of polygenic risk scores
Lambert, S. A., Abraham, G., & Inouye, M. (2019) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddz187 · Cited by 586
Educational Reform, Ability, and Family Background
Meghir, C., & Palme, M. (2004) · Working paper series - Institute for Fiscal Studies/Working papers · doi:10.1920/wp.ifs.2004.0410 · Cited by 581 · cited 1×
“org July 1, 2021 85 tion would have a greater effect than many environmental interventions that have been implemented.(45) It seems plausible that some patients who have undergone IVF will find ESPS attractive — more so as the expected gains increase.”
BackgroundEdwards, A., Elwyn, G., Covey, J., Matthews, E., & Pill, R. (2001) · Journal of health communication · doi:10.1080/10810730150501413 · Cited by 502
Flagged first, then by citations
10 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.033 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.591 · DOI
- Lou H. Eugenics then and now: constitutional limits on the use of reproductive screening technologies. Hastings Constit Law Q 2015;42:393-414 (https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol42/iss2/4/).
- 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/0002828053828671 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–116 of 116
Reply to Letter by Tellier et al., ‘Scientific refutation of ESHG statement on embryo selection’
Forzano, F., Antonova, O., Clarke, A., de Wert, G., Hentze, S., Jamshidi, Y., Moreau, Y., Perola, M., Prokopenko, I., Read, A., et al. (2022) · European Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41431-022-01241-4 · Cited by 1
Fan, R., Shen, H.-F., Liu, Y.-R., Ji, T.-T., Zhang, L.-L., & Ma, X.-L. (2026) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms27208980
“First, PRS-based embryo scores provide only a relative ranking within the limited cohort of available sibling embryos, rather than an absolute diagnostic prediction [100,101].”
Chang, C. L. (2026) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2026.1910448
“…can yield viable ongoing pregnancies (102), introducing additional complexity that future non-invasive AI ploidy models will need to incorporate; the parallel extension of embryo screening to polygenic risk raises distinct scienti fi c and ethical questions that remain unresolved (103 – 105).”
Distinguishing different psychiatric disorders using DDx-PRS
Peyrot, W., Panagiotaropoulou, G., Loohuis, L. O. O., Adams, M., Andreassen, O. A., Awasthi, S., Forstner, A., Ge, T., McIntosh, A., Mitchell, B. L., et al. (2026) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-026-02684-x
“Second, case–control PRSs explain less than 8% of the variance in risk of SCZ in the population 8 (6–13% using PRS-CS 5 ; Supplementary Table 23), 15.”
Lin, L., Liu, S., Xiang, Y., & 葛红山 (2026) · Journal of Ovarian Research · doi:10.1186/s13048-026-02197-5
PEStimate: predicting offspring disease risk after polygenic embryo screening
Klausner, L., Revital, A., Lencz, T., & Carmi, S. (2026) · Bioinform. · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btag308
“All previous models for PES outcomes (Treff et al. 2019a, Turley et al. 2021, Lencz et al. 2021, Moore et al. 2025) reported risk reductions versus the number of (euploid) embryos being screened, implicitly assuming that the transferred embryo will be born.”
InfluentialCanter, C., Meagher, K. M., Cadigan, R. J., Koopmann, A., Watson, S., Kucmanic, M., Ban, S. W., Tran, T. N., Hromcenco, M., Foley, K., et al. (2025) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2025.2576839 · Cited by 2
“Although the integration of PGIs in IVF is controversial, there is the chance that PGI could become normalized in this setting and then utilized in further segments of society (Canter et al. 2023).”
Lencz, T., Bhattacharyya, U., Klausner, L., John, J., & Carmi, S. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.10.08.25337603
“To simulate the risk of embryos, we used the liability threshold model (LTM) 41 , which is commonly utilized in genetic modeling (including PES 42–44 ) and empirical studies of real-world populations 45 .”
Polygenic Embryo Risk Scores: A Survey of Public Perception
Peyser, A., Brogan, C., Zimmerman, L. D., & Goldman, R. (2025) · Reproductive Medicine · doi:10.3390/reprodmed6030019
“Other concerns include societal misinterpretation of risk perception (i.e., absolute vs. relative risk) as well as the technology having limited availability for patients of certain ethnicities [1].”
Gene-environment interplay and public policies
Muslimova, D., & Rietveld, N. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22441
“Recently, selection of embryos during IVF treatments has been advocated to bring genetic inheritances under some control (Turley et al., 2021).”
Lima, N. (2024) · Cultura y Droga · doi:10.17151/culdr.2024.29.37.3
“PGT existe desde hace años para el estudio de patología cromosómica (PGT-A, por aneuploidías) y monogénica (PGT-M), y en la actualidad hay disponibilidad emergente del estudio de condiciones poligénicas (PGT-P) (Treff et al. , 2020; Turley et al. , 2021).”
BackgroundPolygenic Embryo Screening: High Approval Despite Substantial Concerns from the U.S. PublicPreprint
Furrer, R. A., Barlevy, D., Pereira, S., Carmi, S., Lencz, T., & Lázaro‐Muñoz, G. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.10.13.23297022
Carvalho, N. R. G., Harris, A. M., & Lachance, J. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.10.29.514295 · Cited by 3
“Others have gone a step 455 further and advocated using PGS to screen embryos for cognitive traits [66], a position that has 456 received well-warranted criticism [67, 68].”
MethodThe need for diverse empirical data to inform the use of polygenic risk scores in prenatal screening
Miner, S., & Pereira, S. (2023) · American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2169396
“PRS quantifies one’s predisposition to develop a particular condition or trait and are derived from genome wide association studies (GWAS) (Turley et al. 2021).”
BackgroundInfluentialClarke, A. (2023) · American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2169401
“Equating polygenic scores with prediction amounts to the implicit promotion of a false genetic determinism, while leaving aside the problems of pleiotropy, complexity and inequity they acknowledge (Turley et al. 2021).”
BackgroundEstimation of offspring genetic risk scores using parental genotypes.
Adesomo, A., Workalemahu, T., Givens, M., Yandell, M., Quinlan, A., Tristani-Firouzi, M., Heerboth, S., Silver, R., & Blue, N. R. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.06.09.22276224
“The recent emergence of commercial GRS use for human embryo selection following in vitro fertilization is problematic for multiple reasons, not the least of which are ethical concerns related to selection based on inadequately characterized probabilities of more or less desirable adult traits(4).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Turley, P., Meyer, M. N., Wang, N., Cesarini, D., Hammonds, E., Martin, A. R., Neale, B. M., Rehm, H. L., Wilkins-Haug, L., Benjamin, D. J., Hyman, S., Laibson, D., & Visscher, P. M.
- Affiliations
- Broad Institute (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2021-07
- Volume
- 385
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 78-86
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- PMC
- PMC8387884
- OpenAlex
- W3177492916
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 9
- FWCI
- 33.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Sage Foundation
- Open Philanthropy Project (010623-00001)
- Stanley Family Foundation
- Medical Research Council (1113400)
- National Health and Medical Research Council (1113400)
- National Institute on Aging (R24AG065184, R00AG062787, K99AG062787, R56AG042568, R01AG042568)
- National Institute of Mental Health (K99MH117229)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Keywords
- polygenic risk score, embryo selection, in vitro fertilization, predictive power, genome-wide association study, unintended consequences, demographics, social inequality, responsible communication, reproductive technology ethics
- MeSH terms
- Educational Status, Embryo, Mammalian, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Genetic Testing, Humans, Phenotype, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Genetic Variation, Preimplantation Diagnosis, Multifactorial Inheritance, Genome-Wide Association Study, Gene-Environment Interaction
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.
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