Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 13;10(6):448.
doi: 10.3390/genes10060448.

Proprietary Algorithms for Polygenic Risk: Protecting Scientific Innovation or Hiding the Lack of It?

A Cecile J W Janssens  1
Affiliations

Proprietary Algorithms for Polygenic Risk: Protecting Scientific Innovation or Hiding the Lack of It?

A Cecile J W Janssens. Genes (Basel). .

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies aim to predict the risks of complex diseases using proprietary algorithms. Companies keep algorithms as trade secrets for competitive advantage, but a market that thrives on the premise that customers can make their own decisions about genetic testing should respect customer autonomy and informed decision making and maximize opportunities for transparency. The algorithm itself is only one piece of the information that is deemed essential for understanding how prediction algorithms are developed and evaluated. Companies should be encouraged to disclose everything else, including the expected risk distribution of the algorithm when applied in the population, using a benchmark DNA dataset. A standardized presentation of information and risk distributions allows customers to compare test offers and scientists to verify whether the undisclosed algorithms could be valid. A new model of oversight in which stakeholders collaboratively keep a check on the commercial market is needed.

Keywords: DNA; autonomy; calibration; discrimination; personal genomics; polygenic; prediction; regulation; risk; transparency.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Risk distributions of four different polygenic algorithms for a hypothetical disease that affects 20% of the population. (a) Uninformative polygenic algorithm that predicts a 20% risk of disease for everyone; (b) Perfect polygenic algorithm that predicts a 100% risk for the 20% of the people who will develop the disease and 0% risk for the other 80%; (c,d) Polygenic algorithms with lower (c) and higher (d) predictive ability.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kaye J. The regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2008;17:R180–R183. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddn253. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kalf R.R.J., Mihaescu R., Kundu S., de Knijff P., Green R.C., Janssens A. Variations in predicted risks in personal genome testing for common complex diseases. Genet. Med. 2014;16:85–91. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.80. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Imai K., Kricka L.J., Fortina P. Concordance Study of 3 Direct-to-Consumer Genetic-Testing Services. Clin. Chem. 2011;57:518–521. - PubMed
    1. Kutz G. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Test Results Are Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices: Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. U.S. Government Accountability Office; Washington, DC, USA: 2010. [(accessed on 10 June 2019)]. Available online: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10847t.pdf.
    1. United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 18 - Crimes and criminal procedure. Section 1836 - Civil proceedings to enjoin violations