Summary
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 adherence to previous 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 33-item Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Statement (PRS-RS). This framework provides the minimal information expected of authors to promote the internal validity, transparency, and reproducibility of PRS by requiring authors to detail the study population, statistical methods, and 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.
Introduction
The predisposition to common diseases and traits arises from a complex interaction between genetic and nongenetic factors. During the past decade, international collaborations involving cataloged human genetic variation, and large cohorts of well-phenotyped individuals with matched genotype information have enabled the discovery of disease-associated genetic variants.1–4 In particular, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have emerged as a powerful approach to identify disease- or trait-associated genetic variants, typically yielding summary statistics describing the magnitude (effect size) and statistical significance of association between an allele and the trait of interest.4,5 GWAS have been applied to a wide range of complex human traits and diseases, including height, blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, and Alzheimer’s disease.
The associations identified via GWAS can quantify genetic predisposition to a heritable trait, which can be used to conduct disease risk stratification or predict prognostic outcomes and response to therapy.6,7 Typically, information across many variants is used to form a weighted sum of allele counts across variants, where the weights reflect the magnitude of association between variant alleles and the trait or disease. These weighted sums can include up to millions of variants, and are frequently referred to as polygenic risk score(s) (PRS), or genetic or genomic risk score(s) (GRS), if they refer to disease risk; or, more generally, polygenic score(s) (PGS) when referring to any phenotype (see Box 1 for further discussion of nomenclature). While there is active development of algorithms to decide how many and which variants to include and how much to weigh them so as to maximize the proportion variance explained or the disease discrimination, there is an emerging consensus that the inclusion of variants beyond those meeting stringent GWAS significance levels can boost predictive performance.8,9
Box 1. Definitions of relevant genetic risk prediction terms
Polygenic Score(s) (PGS): a single value that estimates the genetic contribution to inter-individual variation in a trait. Typically calculated by summing the number of trait-associated alleles in an individual, weighted by per-allele effect sizes from a discovery GWAS. Sometimes referred to as a genetic score.
Polygenic Risk Score(s) (PRS): a PGS which is used to estimate risk of disease or other clinically relevant outcomes (binary or discrete). Sometimes referred to as a genetic or genomic risk score (GRS). See categories of PRS below.
Integrated Risk Model: a risk model combining PGS/PRS with other established risk factors, such as demographics (often age and sex), anthropometrics, biomarkers, and clinical measurements to estimate a specific disease risk.
Categories of use for PRS and/or integrated risk models
The addition of PRS to existing risk models has several potential applications, summarized below. In each, the aim of PRS integration is to improve individual or subgroup classification to the extent that there is clinical benefit.
Disease Risk Prediction – used to estimate an individual’s risk of developing a disease, based on the presence of certain genetic and/or clinical variables.
Disease Diagnosis – used to classify whether an individual has a disease, or a disease subtype, linked to a certain etiology based on the presence of certain genetic and/or clinical variables.8,10
Disease Prognosis – used to estimate the risk of further adverse outcome(s) subsequent to diagnosis of disease.11
Therapeutic – used to predict a patient or subgroup’s response to a particular treatment.12
Frameworks have been developed to establish standards around the transparent, standardized, accurate, complete and meaningful reporting of scientific studies. Those relevant for development and validation of risk prediction models include PICOT13, TRIPOD14, STROBE15, STREGA16, and, notably, the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement17 which specifically address reporting of genetic risk prediction studies. However, no framework adequately addresses the emerging use of PRS in clinical care and disease prevention.
It is time to update the GRIPS statement as PRS have become ubiquitous in genetic research while reporting remains heterogeneous, particularly in terms of transparency and enabling reproducibility. The methods utilised for PRS construction and risk-model development have become more diverse and sophisticated.18–20 Biobanks and large-scale consortia have become dominant, yet frequently have limited access to individual-level data. Standards for reporting genetic ancestry information have been developed1, and there is a push towards open data sharing as outlined in the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) Data Principles.3,21 Finally, the rapid rise of direct-to-consumer assays and companies (including 23andMe, Color, MyHeritage, etc.) providing PGS/PRS results to customers has vastly increased the scope and complexity of genetic risk information. The readiness of PRS for implementation varies among phenotypes, with only a few diseases like breast cancer 22–24 and coronary heart disease (CHD) having mature PRS with potential clinical utility (see Box 2 for additional discussion of CHD). These concomitant advances have resulted in healthcare systems developing new infrastructures to deliver genetic risk information, and the field now needs to develop standards for clinical applications of PRS.
Box 2: Current CHD PRS and their potential uses
While many PRS have been developed to predict CHD, they vary greatly in the computational methods used to develop them, the number of variants included (50–6,000,000), and the GWAS and cohorts used for PRS training. For example, the latest and currently most predictive CHD PRS use GWAS summary statistics from the CardiogramPlusC4D study25, and mainly differ by the computational methods used to select the included variants (including LDpred26,27, lassosum28, and meta-scoring approaches29), and how they are combined into risk models. These PRS, however, may provide useful information for predicting risk of CHD being largely orthogonal to conventional risk factors (age, sex, blood pressure, cholesterol, BMI, smoking) as well as family history. Clinical applications may include:
Improved risk prediction for future adverse cardiovascular events when added to traditional risk models (including Framingham Risk Score30, Pooled Cohort Equations28,29, QRISK28).
Reclassification of risk categories often leading to recommendations related to risk-reducing treatments like statins.30–32
While the data strongly suggest CHD PRS, by refining risk estimates, may improve patient outcomes, clinical utility through randomized clinical trials has yet to be conclusively established. We anticipate this is the future direction of PRS studies, and a number of clinical trials are underway.33
At present, there are no uniformly agreed best practices for developing PRS nor any regulation or standards for reporting or assessing their clinical readiness. These deficiencies are barriers to PRS being interpreted, compared, and reproduced, and must be addressed to enable the application of PRS to improve clinical practice and public health. Here, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog jointly present reporting standards that address current PRS research and highlight a complementary centralized repository for PRS with the ClinGen-PGS Catalog joint Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS). We outline a foundation for transparent, standardized, accurate, and clinically meaningful reporting on PRS development and validation in the literature to overcome these barriers.
Results
Updated PRS Reporting Guidelines
This guideline aims to specify the minimal criteria needed to accurately interpret a PRS and reproduce results throughout the PRS development process, briefly illustrated in Figure 1. It applies to the development and validation studies for PRS that aim to predict disease, prognosis and response to therapies. Table 1 presents the full PRS-RS.
Figure 1 displays prototypical steps for PRS construction, development, validation, and performance, with select aspects of the ClinGen PRS reporting guideline highlighted throughout. In PRS development, variants associated with a phenotype of interest, typically identified from a GWAS, are combined as a weighted sum of allele counts across variants. Methods for optimizing variant selection for a PRS (PRS Construction) are not shown. The PRS is tested in a risk model predicting the phenotype of interest and may be combined with other non-clinical variables. Collectively, all variables included in the risk model are referred to as the risk model parameters. After fitting procedures to select the best risk model, this model is validated in an independent sample. The performance of a model is demonstrated though risk score distribution, discrimination, predictive ability, and calibration. Though not displayed in the figure, these same results should also be reported for the training sample for comparison to the validation sample. In both training and validation cohorts, the phenotype of interest criteria, demographics, genotyping, and non-genetic variables should be reported (Table 1).
ClinGen PRS Reporting Guideline.
Bold= training and validation, when applicabl0065
Reporting on risk score background
As the PRS-RS are focused on future utility and implementation, authors must outline the study and target population and appropriate outcomes to understand what risk is measured. Authors should use the appropriate data needed to address the intended clinical use, with adequate documentation of dataset characteristics to inform understanding of the nuance in measured risk. For example, when developing a risk score, there can be disparities between the risk-score predicted clinical end-outcome (e.g., cardiovascular risk) and the measured phenotype of interest (e.g., LDL cholesterol) used in the analysis. If a surrogate outcome is used, this should be clearly stated with an explanation including the limitations of the study design or study recruitment method, in which the clinical end outcome was not measured.
Reporting on populations
The “who, where, and when” of risk depend on the study population used to derive the risk model. Therefore, authors need to define and characterize the demographics of their study population, especially the age, sex, and ancestry composition. There are often inconsistent definitions and levels of detail associated with ancestry, and the transferability of genetic findings between different racial/ethnic groups can be limited.1,8,34 It is essential for authors to define participants based on their self-identified ancestry, with a standardized framework developed by the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog to enable comparability between studies.1 While these three demographic variables are the most universally relevant, authors should provide sufficient level of detail for all relevant factors for the outcome of interest, especially if they are included in the final risk model under risk model parameter specifications.
Reporting on Methods
There are currently several methods that are commonly used to select variants and fine-tune weights.7,18–20,35 As the performance and limitations of the risk score are dependent on these methods, authors must provide complete details including the source of genetic information (risk model genetic data acquisition) and inclusion/exclusion criteria (risk model parameter specifications). Once these parameters are defined, authors should describe the methods used to transform the raw data, often derived from GWAS summary statistics, to a sum of variants for their polygenic risk score estimation. Often authors will iterate through numerous models to find the optimal fit. Therefore, in addition to the estimation methods, it is important to detail the statistical model fitting procedure, including the measures used for the final model selection.
Reporting on Risk Estimation
Translating the continuous PRS distribution to a risk estimate, whether absolute or relative, is highly dependent on assumptions about and limitations with the specific data set utilised. When describing the risk model type, authors should detail the time scale employed for prediction or the study period/follow-up time for a relative hazard model. Additionally, if relative risk is estimated, the reference group should be well described. These details should be described for the training set, as well as validation and sub-group analyses. The risk score calibration and discrimination should be described for all analyses, although their estimation and interpretation are most relevant for validation, preferably with an external validation set. Any differences in variable definitions between the training and validation sets should be described.
Reporting on Model Parameters
Reporting actual estimates, not only the methods behind decision-making, enables readers to gauge the relative value of an increase in performance against other trade-offs. Making the underlying PRS (variant alleles and derived weights) publicly available and submitting them to the PGS Catalog allows others to reuse existing models (with known validity) and enables direct benchmarking between different PRS for the same trait. The current mathematical form of most PRS—a linear combination of allele counts—facilitates model description and reproducibility. Future genomic risk models may have more complicated forms, e.g. allowing for non-linear epistatic and gene-environment interactions. It will be important to describe these models in sufficient detail to allow their implementation by other researchers and clinical groups; this might entail sharing open-source code.
Reporting on Interpretation
By explicitly describing the risk model’s interpretation and outlining potential limitations to the generalizability of their model, authors will empower readers and the wider community to better understand the risk score and its relative merits. Authors should justify the clinical relevance and risk-score intended purpose, such as how the performance of their PRS compares to other commonly used risk metrics, either from previously published PRS or conventional risk calculators, such as the pooled cohort equations for estimating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.36 This is important — what indicates a “good” prediction can differ between outcomes and intended purposes.
Lastly, we would like to reiterate the need for both methodological and data transparency. Deposition in a resource such as the PGS Catalog provides an invaluable resource for widespread adoption and improvement of a published PRS. Supplemental Table 1 provides additional reporting considerations on top of the minimal reporting framework in Table 1. Authors intending downstream clinical implementation should aim for the level of transparent and comprehensive reporting covered in both Table 1 and Supplemental Table 1, especially those related to discussing the interpretation, limitations, and generalizability of results.
Compatibility with the PGS Catalog submission template
The PGS Catalog (www.PGSCatalog.org; Lambert et al., 2019) provides access to PGS scores and related metadata to support the FAIR principles of data stewardship21, enabling subsequent applications and assessments of PGS performance and best practices. The goals of the PGS Catalog align with ClinGen with slight differences in how the data is represented in the Catalog (link). Overall, there is a good agreement between the PRS-RS and PGS Catalog representation schema (field by field mapping outlined in Supplemental Table 2A), particularly with respect to how study participants are described. Reporting items in the PRS-RS that are not present in the PGS Catalog (Supplemental Table 2B) include descriptions, goals, limitations and intended uses of PRS predictions and implementation that are not essential to the Catalog’s goal of indexing available published PGS with the metadata essential for interpretation and reproducibility. PRS described using the PRS-RS items contain sufficient detail for their addition to the PGS Catalog, as such we recommend that authors describe scores using the PRS-RS and submit them to the PGS Catalog upon publication.
Discussion
Polygenic risk scores have transformed human genetic research and emerged as potentially powerful tools for the translation of genomic discoveries into clinical and public health benefits. However, standardized and robust methods and reporting criteria are urgently needed in this area order to realize its potential. The heterogeneity in the reporting of PRS to date—including what to report and how to report it—highlights the challenges for accurate interpretation and confidence in PRS, especially with respect to assessing clinical readiness. (Box 3) Critical aspects of PRS studies, including ancestry, predictive ability, and transparency/availability of information needed to reproduce PRS, are frequently inadequately reported. Without these aspects, PRS cannot be rigorously assessed and compared, even within the same disease or recruitment cohorts. This underscores the need for a reporting standard with clear, specific definitions that conveys the meaningful aspects of PRS development and testing, which are critical to understanding PRS predictive ability and specificity for the intended target population and phenotype of interest.
Box 3. Many papers lack sufficient detail for interpretation
We carried out a iterature review (representative across a variety of diseases, risk score categories, and populations) to revise the PRS-RS (N=30). It revealed multiple reporting items with insufficient and/or missing details as well as variable details provided on methods, results, and discussion (Figure 2). Papers had insufficient detail for items related to study design and variables, particularly phenotype of interest (inclusion/exclusion criteria and control definitions) and ancestry (definition, distribution of participants). There was also insufficient detail and absent reporting for items needed to reproduce or critically assess the analytic validity of a PRS, including statistical validation model, risk score calibration, and data transparency and availability. We observed variable, often absent, discussion about the intended clinical purpose or utility of the score, and on how the PRS compared to standard of care. Papers also varied in their discussion of study limitations, particularly with regard to how the ancestry of the training and validation sets affected PRS generalizability.
PRS-RS items with missing and insufficient detail.
A total of 30 papers were reviewed.
The ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group utilized an iterative review process incorporating previous standards, expert opinion and practical considerations to create an updated PRS-RS of 33 items, spanning PRS derivation, testing and validation steps (Table 1). The reporting guideline is complemented by the PGS Catalog (www.PGSCatalog.org), an online database that freely provides the underlying information necessary to calculate the polygenic score (e.g., variants and weights) and curates important meta-data on polygenic scores in structured, standardized formats. The PGS Catalog provides an open platform for implementing reporting standards and lays the foundation for assessing best practices in polygenic score research.
ClinGen has incorporated multiple sources to create a guide that is flexible, pragmatic, and informed. Researchers using this guideline may identify fringe cases that are inadequately covered, and the guide may become dated as PRS research continues to mature. However, by updating previous standards, involving current leaders in the field, and adapting the framework pragmatically to the barriers observed in recent literature, we aimed to provide a comprehensive perspective on the topic. In comparison to the original GRIPS statement, PRS-RS has expanded on elements related to understanding the clinical validity of PRS and consequent risk models. Items such as risk score predicted clinical end outcome (introduction) and risk score intended purpose (discussion) bookend our guideline with the intended clinical framing of PRS reporting. Most other items in PRS-RS are consistent with the original GRIPS items but are presented in greater detail for more accurately assessing the clinical validity of PRS when needed. For example, the GRIPS item called “study design and setting” has been split into “study design” and “study recruitment,” in acknowledgment of the importance of both distinct pieces of information in understanding study biases or limitations.
While the scope of our work encompasses clinical validity, it does not address the additional requirements needed for clinical or public health utility, such as randomized trials with clinically meaningful outcomes, health economic evaluations, or feasibility studies. In addition, the translation of structured data elements into useful clinical parameters may not be direct. Two relevant examples are (i) the disease case definitions utilized in training or validation in any particular PRS study may deviate (sometimes substantially) from those utilized in any specific health system, and (ii) the definitions used for race/ancestry as outlined in the PGS and GWAS Catalog1 may also deviate from structured terms used to document ancestry information in clinical care. Such translation issues potentially limit generalizability to target populations and warrant further discussion. Nevertheless, we have emphasized the need for authors to be mindful of their intended purpose and target audience when discussing their findings. Additionally, while the principles of this work are clear, its scope does not include the complex commercial restrictions, such as intellectual property, that may be placed on published studies regarding the reporting or distribution of polygenic scores, or the underlying data thereof. This work can inform downstream regulation and transparency standards for PRS as a commercial clinical tool.
The coordinated efforts of the ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group and PGS Catalog provide a set of compatible resources for researchers to deposit PRS information. The PGS Catalog provides an informatics platform with data integration and harmonization to other PGS as well as the source GWAS study through its sister platform, the GWAS Catalog.37 In addition, it provides a structured database of scores (variants and effect sizes) and metadata requested in PRS-RS. With these tools, PRS-RS can be mandated by leading peer-reviewed journals and, consequently, the quality and rigor of PRS research will be elevated to a level which facilitates clinical implementation.
While we have provided explicit recommendations on how to acknowledge study design limitations and their impact on the interpretation and generalizability of a PRS, future research should attempt to establish best practices to guide the field. In addition, future reporting guidelines should address important questions about clinical readiness, specifically about intended use and target populations to help ease translation into practice. While the working group has begun to address how changes in PRS practices should be accounted for when reporting a PRS, future research should attempt to create a reporting guideline that anticipates the consequences of new methods, such as deep learning. We encourage readers to visit the ClinGen complex disease website (https://clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/complex-disease/) for any future changes or amendments to the reporting guideline.
Methods
ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group
The working group, founded by ClinGen in November 2018, comprised more than thirty experts with epidemiological, statistical, disease-domain specific, implementation science, actionability, and ELSI interests in polygenic risk score application. Members met twice a month to discuss current research, best practices, and limitations within their respective areas of expertise. As a result of these meetings, the workgroup decided to update previous genetic risk-score reporting standards17 to current PRS practices. This aim was finalized at the NHGRI Genomic Medicine XII: Genomics and Risk Prediction meeting in May 2019 with input from the external scientific community in terms of mission, scope, and long-term objectives of the working group. Current descriptions of workgroup members and goals are available at: https://clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/complex-disease/
The Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog
The PGS Catalog was founded in 2019 by researchers at the University of Cambridge UK, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and Baker Institute, and developed as a sister resource to the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog37. Its goal is to provide an open database of PGS and relevant metadata, so that published PRS/PGS can be distributed, applied, and evaluated in a rigorous and replicable manner in both research and clinical settings. It reports key information about how a PGS has been developed (e.g., variant selection and computational methods), information about the specific datasets used for PGS development and evaluation (e.g., sample size, ancestry, phenotype description), as well as the performance metrics reported during PGS evaluation (e.g., effect sizes, covariates, and/or classification metrics). These data are represented in a schema that links the Scores, Samples, and Performance Metrics presented in each PGS publication. The PGS Catalog is available at www.PGSCatalog.org; additional descriptions of the project, development, methods, full descriptions of the representation schema, along with links for PGS submission can be found in the documentation (www.pgscatalog.org/about/) and will be described in a future publication. (Lambert et al., in preparation)
PRS Reporting Framework: Expert Guidelines Approach
PRS-RS was developed in iterative phases utilizing previous standards, expert opinion, and a pragmatic literature review process. First, the entire expert working group created the initial framework draft by adapting previous genetic risk-score reporting standards to current PRS methodologies. This was followed by a second round of revisions using a literature review. These steps led to a series of proposed revisions that were finalized with the entire working group. Finally, PRS-RS and PGS Catalog fields were mapped onto one another, and definitions were modified to reflect shared language, when possible.
Draft guidelines from previous guidelines
The draft PRS-RS largely expanded on the GRIPS guidelines for genetic risk-prediction studies published in 2011.17 To create the preliminary framework, we relied on expert opinion, and were guided by the PICOT framework used to compare heterogeneous clinical trial outcomes.13 Our revisions focused on eliciting the individual components from previous standards that experts deemed independently important for transparent interpretation and reproducibility of a risk score (Supplemental Figure 1). We expanded the original GRIPS checklist of 25 items to 44 unique items, of which 33 items were needed for both training and validation cohorts. The majority of these additions were added to explicitly list discrete elements within an individual GRIPS checklist item if those elements were determined by the work group to have significant impact in the interpretation of a PRS in terms of either analytic validity, clinical validity, or clinical utility. The PICOT framework did not add items to the reporting guidelines, but we did confirm that PICOT concepts were represented in the reporting guideline to facilitate downstream applications of comparing heterogeneous outcomes.
PRS-RS revisions using literature review
We used the PRS-RS checklist to curate original research articles on polygenic risk-score development or validation as a measure of pragmatism and clarity. Thirty-five papers were initially collected via the snowball sampling search based on their use of the term “polygenic risk score” and their research in human populations in preparation for the NHGRI Genomic Medicine XII meeting. Five papers were excluded from the review because they were not original articles, did not develop or validate a PRS, duplicated a previous study, or did not use genetic loci to construct their risk scores. Included articles spanned a variety of disease domains including Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, breast cancer, cerebrovascular event, colon cancer, coronary heart disease, depression, fracture risk, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer, and schizophrenia. In addition, articles were selected for variety in the risk score category (development vs. external validation; diagnostic vs. prognostic). Article references are available in the supplement.
Two independent reviewers assessed each article using the draft PRS reporting framework. A 10-person volunteer subgroup of the larger working group met bi-weekly to resolve inter-reviewer discrepancies. If the subgroup was unable to reach a consensus, one of four expert reviewers from the working group was assigned to resolve discrepancies in a third review. This pilot of the reporting guideline on published PRS revealed pragmatic areas for revision. Similar items were combined if they did not individually contribute meaningful concepts for PRS interpretation. Items were removed if they did not contribute to overall interpretation of the risk-score performance or target application. Definitions were expanded and revised to address inconsistencies in inter-reviewer interpretation due to heterogeneous and vague reporting in the literature. Items were kept as discrete items if we observed substantially missing or insufficiently detailed reports on these items in the literature for transparency. When applicable, updated methodology was also included in definitions. Finally, supplemental considerations were created to address fringe cases (Supplementary Table 1). Proposed reporting guideline revisions were ratified in monthly calls with the entire workgroup. This final 33-item PRS-RS is presented in Table 1.
Papers were re-curated using the final reporting guideline. The majority of papers (25/30) were predicting risk of developing disease with a few characterizing prognostic outcomes. Nearly half of the papers (13/30) developed a novel risk score, while the other half either externally validated a previously published risk score (9/30) or both developed and externally validated the risk score (6/30). Two manuscripts modified a previously published score. The composition of the final published risk scores were limited to genetic variables for the majority of papers (25/30), with only five producing an integrated risk score.
PRS-RS harmonization with PGS Catalog
Two curators mapped reporting fields from the PGS Catalog onto the final PRS-RS guidelines. When possible, similar terminology was adopted between the two resources. A subset of fields in the PGS Catalog differ from PRS-RS due to restrictions in preserving integrity of the data infrastructure. The analogous ClinGen reporting item is listed in the PGS Catalog as a footnote to aid researchers, and this field mapping is available in the supplement (Supplementary Table 2).
Data Availability
N/A
Author Contributions
HW, CT, MAI, IJK, CS, RR, KV, KK, KABG, PK, and GLW conducted the literature review of reporting practices. HW, SAL, CT, MIA, JWO, IJK, RR, DB, EV, MIM, ACA, DFE, RAH, AVK, NC, CK, KE, EMR, MCR, KEO, MJK, ACJWJ, KABG, PK, JALM, MI, and GLW provided feedback on the reporting framework. HW, SAL, CT, MAI, JWO, IJK, AVK, JND, HP, EMR, MR, ACJWJ, KABG, PK, JALM, MI, and GLW wrote and edited the manuscript text and items.
Competing Interests
MIM is on the advisory panels Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and Zoe Global; Honoraria: Merck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; Research funding: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Servier & Takeda. As of June 2019, he is an employee of Genentech with stock and stock options in Roche. No other authors have competing interests to declare.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the input of the ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group members, including Carlos D. Bustamante, Michelle Meyer, Frank Harrell, David Kent, Peter Visscher, Tim Assimes, Sharon Plon, and Jonathan Berg. We would also like to thank Diane Durham for her editorial support and Angela Paolucci for her administrative support in the preparation and submission of this manuscript.
ClinGen is primarily funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), through the following three grants: U41HG006834, U41HG009649, U41HG009650. ClinGen also receives support for content curation from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), through the following three grants: U24HD093483, U24HD093486, U24HD093487. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, the views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U41HG007823 (EBI-NHGRI GWAS Catalog, PGS Catalog). In addition, we acknowledge funding from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Individuals were funded from the following sources: MIM was a Wellcome Investigator and an NIHR Senior Investigator with funding from NIDDK (U01-DK105535); Wellcome (090532, 098381, 106130, 203141, 212259). MI and SAL were supported by core funding from: the UK Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1), the British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194; RG/18/13/33946) and the National Institute for Health Research (Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust). This work was also supported by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation and Wellcome.
Footnotes
↵# Shared first authorship
$ Shared senior authorship
