Here, we argue that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are different epistemic objects as compared to other biomarkers such as blood pressure or sodium level. While the latter two may be subject to variation, measured inaccurately or interpreted in various ways, blood flow has pressure and sodium is available in a concentration that can be quantified and visualised. In stark contrast, PRSs are calculated, compiled or constructed through the statistical assemblage of genetic variants. How researchers frame and name PRSs has consequences for how we interpret and value their results. We distinguish between the tangible and inferential understanding of PRS and the corresponding languages of measurement and computation, respectively. The conflation of these frames obscures important questions we need to ask: what PRS seeks to represent, whether current ways of ‘doing PRS’ are optimal and responsible, and upon what we base the credibility of PRS-based knowledge claims.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
This conceptual analysis does not report data.
Genome-wide association studies
Polygenic Risk Score(s)
Randomized clinical trial
Single nucleotide polymorphism
Bartlett A, Penders B, Lewis J (2017) Bioinformatics: indispensable, yet hidden in plain sight? BMC Bioinformatics 18:311. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1730-9
Chang H (2004) Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, New York
Choi SW, Mak TSH, O’Reilly PF (2020) Tutorial: a guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses. Nat Protoc 15:2759–2772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0353-1
Collins H (2019) Forms of life: the method and meaning of sociology. MIT Press, Boston
Collins H, Pinch T (2008) Dr. Golem: how to think about medicine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Derks EM, Vorstman JA, Ripke S, Kahn RS, Ophoff RA, Schizophrenia Psychiatric Genomic Consortium (2012) Investigation of the genetic association between quantitative measures of psychosis and schizophrenia: a polygenic risk score analysis. PLoS ONE 7:6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037852
Domingue BW, Belsky DW, Harris KM, Smolen A, McQueen MB, Boardman JD (2014) Polygenic risk predicts obesity in both white and black young adults. PLoS ONE 9:7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101596
Dron JS, Hegele RA (2018) Polygenic influences on dyslipidemias. Curr Opin Lipidol 29:133–143. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOL.0000000000000482
Frank J, Lang M, Witt SH, Strohmaier J, Rujescu D, Cichon S, Degenhardt F, Nöthen MM, Collier DA, Ripke S, Naber D (2015) Identification of increased genetic risk scores for schizophrenia in treatment-resistant patients. Mol Psychiatry 20:150–151. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.56
Goffmann E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper and Row, New York
Haraway D (1991) Cyborgs, simians, and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, London
Hill WD, Davies NM, Ritchie SJ, Skene NG, Bryois J, Bell S, Di Angelantonio E, Roberts DJ, Xueyi S, Davies G, Liewald DC, Porteous DJ, Hayward C, Butterworth AS, McIntosh AM, Gale CR, Deary IJ (2019) Genetic analysis identifies molecular systems and biological pathways associated with household income. Nat Commun 10:5741. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13585-5
International Schizophrenia Consortium, Purcell SM, Wray NR, Stone JL, Visscher PM, O’Donovan MC, Sullivan PF, Sklar P (2009) Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature 460:748–752. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08185
Janssens ACJW (2019) Validity of polygenic risk scores: are we measuring what we think we are? Hum Mol Genet 28:R143–R150. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddz205
Lango H, UK Type 2 Diabetes Genetics Consortium, Palmer CN, Morris AD, Zeggini E, Hattersley AT, McCarthy MI, Frayling TM, Weedon MN (2008) Assessing the combined impact of 18 common genetic variants of modest effect sizes on type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes 57:3129–3135. https://doi.org/10.2337/db08-0504
Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A et al (2018) Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1million individuals. Nat Genet 50:1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3
Maller J, George S, Purcell S, Fagerness J, Altshuler D, Daly MJ, Seddon JM (2006) Common variation in three genes, including a noncoding variant in CFH, strongly influences risk of age-related macular degeneration. Nat Genet 38:1055–1059. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1873
Meigs JB, Shrader P, Sullivan LM, McAteer JB, Fox CS, Dupuis J, Manning AK, Florez JC, Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Cupples LA (2008) Genotype score in addition to common risk factors for prediction of type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 359:2208–2219. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0804742
Papiol S, Mitjans M, Assogna F, Piras F, Hammer C, Caltagirone C, Arias B, Ehrenreich H, Spalletta G (2014) Polygenic determinants of white matter volume derived from GWAS lack reproducibility in a replicate sample. Transl Psychiatry 4:e362. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2013.126
Rietveld CA, Slob E, Thurik AR (2020) A decade of research on the genetics of entrepreneurship: a review and view ahead. Small Bus Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00349-5
Saguy AC (2012) What’s wrong with fat? Oxford University Press, New York
Seddon JM, Reynolds R, Maller J, Fagerness A, Daly MJ, Rosner B (2009) Prediction model for prevalence and incidence of advanced age-related macular degeneration based on genetic, demographic, and environmental variables. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:2044–2053. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.08-3064
Talmud PJ, Hingorani AD, Cooper JA, Marmot MG, Brunner EJ, Kumari M, Kivimäki M, Humphries SE (2010) Utility of genetic and non-genetic risk factors in prediction of type 2 diabetes: Whitehall II prospective cohort study. BMJ 340:b4838. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4838
van Hoek M, Dehghan A, Witteman JC, van Duijn CM, Uitterlinden AG, Oostra BA, Hofman A, Sijbrands EJ, Janssens AC (2008) Predicting type 2 diabetes based on polymorphisms from genome-wide association studies: a population-based study. Diabetes 57:3122–3128
Visscher PM, Goddard ME (2019) From R.A. Fisher’s 1918 paper to GWAS a century later. Genetics 211:1125–1130. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.118.301594
Wald NJ, Old R (2019) The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction. Genet Med 21:1705–1707. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0418-5
Yeh RW, Valsdottir LR, Yeh MW, Shen C, Kramer DB, Strom JB, Secemsky EA, Healy JL, Domeier RM, Kazi DS, Nallamothu BK (2018) Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 13:363. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5094
Zwart H, Ter Meulen R (2019) Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care. Life Sci Soc Pol 15:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-019-0093-6
We thank Lotte Thissen for providing valuable and constructive feedback on earlier versions of our manuscript.
No specific funding was used to produce this article.
Conflict of interest
None to report.
The article presents a conceptual, non-empirical, analysis and does not require ethics approval.
Informed consent to participate
The article presents a conceptual analysis, the research reported has no participants.
Informed consent for publication
The article presents a conceptual analysis and requires no such consent.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Penders, B., Janssens, A.C.J.W. Do we measure or compute polygenic risk scores? Why language matters. Hum Genet (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-021-02262-7