Do we measure or compute polygenic risk scores? Why language matters


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.

Data availability

This conceptual analysis does not report data.



Genome-wide association studies


Polygenic Risk Score(s)


Randomized clinical trial


Single nucleotide polymorphism


  1. Bartlett A, Penders B, Lewis J (2017) Bioinformatics: indispensable, yet hidden in plain sight? BMC Bioinformatics 18:311.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang H (2004) Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, New York

  3. Choi SW, Mak TSH, O’Reilly PF (2020) Tutorial: a guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses. Nat Protoc 15:2759–2772.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins H (2019) Forms of life: the method and meaning of sociology. MIT Press, Boston

  5. Collins H, Pinch T (2008) Dr. Golem: how to think about medicine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  6. 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dron JS, Hegele RA (2018) Polygenic influences on dyslipidemias. Curr Opin Lipidol 29:133–143.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goffmann E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Haraway D (1991) Cyborgs, simians, and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Janssens ACJW (2019) Validity of polygenic risk scores: are we measuring what we think we are? Hum Mol Genet 28:R143–R150.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rietveld CA, Slob E, Thurik AR (2020) A decade of research on the genetics of entrepreneurship: a review and view ahead. Small Bus Econ.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saguy AC (2012) What’s wrong with fat? Oxford University Press, New York

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Visscher PM, Goddard ME (2019) From R.A. Fisher’s 1918 paper to GWAS a century later. Genetics 211:1125–1130.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wald NJ, Old R (2019) The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction. Genet Med 21:1705–1707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


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.

Author information




BP: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing; ACJWJ: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing (CRediT roles).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Cecile J. W. Janssens.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Ethical approval

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Penders, B., Janssens, A.C.J.W. Do we measure or compute polygenic risk scores? Why language matters. Hum Genet (2021).

Download citation