Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies
Authors: Wand Hannah , Lambert Samuel A. , Tamburro Cecelia , Iacocca Michael A. , O’Sullivan Jack W. , Sillari Catherine , Kullo Iftikhar J. , Rowley Robb , Dron Jacqueline S. , Brockman Deanna , Venner Eric , McCarthy Mark I. , Antoniou Antonis C. , Easton Douglas F. , Hegele Robert A. , Khera Amit V. , Chatterjee Nilanjan , Kooperberg Charles , Edwards Karen , Vlessis Katherine , Kinnear Kim , Danesh John N. , Parkinson Helen , Ramos Erin M. , Roberts Megan C. , Ormond Kelly E. , Khoury Muin J. , Janssens A. Cecile J.W. , Goddard Katrina A.B. , Kraft Peter , MacArthur Jaqueline A. L. , Inouye Michael , Wojcik Genevieve 
Published: May 2020

Polygenic risk scores (PRS), often aggregating the results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between the initial variant discovery efforts and disease risk estimation for clinical applications. However, there is remarkable heterogeneity in the reporting of these risk scores due to a lack of adherence to reporting standards and no accepted standards suited for the current state of PRS development and application. This lack of adherence and best practices hinders the translation of PRS into clinical care. The ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group, in a collaboration with the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, have developed a novel PRS Reporting Statement (PRS-RS), updating previous standards to the current state of the field and to enable downstream utility. Drawing upon experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation, and policy, this 23-item reporting framework defines the minimal information needed to interpret and evaluate a PRS, especially with respect to any downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of the study population (recruitment method, key demographics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and phenotype definition), statistical methods for both PRS development and validation, and considerations for potential limitations of the published risk score and downstream clinical utility. Additionally, emphasis has been placed on data availability and transparency to facilitate reproducibility and benchmarking against other PRS, such as deposition in the publicly available PGS Catalog (www.PGScatalog.org). By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds upon existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRS will facilitate translation of PRS into clinical care and progress towards defining best practices.

In recent years, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have become an increasingly studied tool to capture the genome-wide liability underlying many human traits and diseases, hoping to better inform an individual’s genetic risk. However, a lack of tailored reporting standards has hindered the translation of this important tool into clinical and public health practice with the heterogeneous underreporting of details necessary for benchmarking and reproducibility. To address this gap, the ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group and Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog have collaborated to develop the 23-item Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Statement (PRS-RS). This framework provides the minimal information expected of authors to promote the validity, transparency, and reproducibility of PRS by requiring authors to detail the study population, statistical methods, and potential clinical utility of a published score. The widespread adoption of this framework will encourage rigorous methodological consideration and facilitate benchmarking to ensure high quality scores are translated into the clinic.