Cited by 187Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyReproductive Health and Technologies

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 access

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsr2105065

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 46 references

10 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.033 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.591 · DOI
  3. 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/).
  4. 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1257/0002828053828671 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–116 of 116

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)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2021-07
Volume
385
Issue
1
Pages
78-86
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
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
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