Computational Analysis of SNPs for Personal Health Risk Prediction
Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are single base-pair variations in the genome that contribute to genetic diversity and can influence disease risk. Modern personal genomics services (e.g. 23andMe) leverage SNP data to provide individuals with health risk assessments. These assessments are derived from large-scale genetic studies (such as genome-wide association studies, GWAS) that identify SNPs associated with various diseases.

by Andre Paquette

Introduction to SNPs and Health Risk Assessment
What are SNPs?
Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are single base-pair variations in the genome that contribute to genetic diversity and can influence disease risk. These variations occur when a single nucleotide (A, T, G, or C) in the DNA sequence is altered. SNPs occur approximately once in every 300 nucleotides, meaning there are roughly 10 million SNPs in the human genome. While most SNPs have no effect on health, certain variants can predispose individuals to specific diseases or influence their response to medications.
Personal Genomics Services
Modern personal genomics services (e.g. 23andMe, Ancestry, MyHeritage) leverage SNP data to provide individuals with health risk assessments. These direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies analyze a customer's DNA sample to identify specific SNP variants. The testing process typically involves collecting a saliva sample, extracting DNA, and using genotyping technologies to identify thousands of SNPs across the genome. The resulting genetic profile can reveal ancestry information, trait predictions, and potential disease susceptibilities.
Genetic Studies
These assessments are derived from large-scale genetic studies (such as genome-wide association studies, GWAS) that identify SNPs associated with various diseases. GWAS compare the DNA of individuals with a particular disease to those without it, highlighting SNPs that appear more frequently in the affected population. These statistical associations help establish risk factors for conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers. As research advances, machine learning algorithms increasingly help interpret complex patterns of multiple SNPs to improve risk prediction accuracy and personalized health recommendations.
SNP Identification and Selection
Reference Projects
Identifying SNPs typically begins with large reference projects and high-throughput genotyping. Initiatives like the International HapMap and 1000 Genomes Project have cataloged millions of human SNPs. These collaborative efforts have created comprehensive databases of genetic variation across diverse populations, enabling researchers to understand population-specific patterns and evolutionary relationships.
DNA Microarrays
Personal genomics companies often use DNA microarrays to genotype hundreds of thousands of selected SNPs on each customer. These silicon-based platforms contain microscopic spots of DNA oligonucleotides that bind to complementary DNA sequences in customer samples. The fluorescent signals from bound DNA are then measured and analyzed to determine genotypes at specific SNP locations, providing a cost-effective approach for large-scale genetic screening.
Tag SNP Selection
These SNPs are chosen to maximize information: tag SNPs are representative variants that capture the genetic variation of nearby SNPs through linkage disequilibrium. By identifying patterns of correlation between nearby variants, researchers can select a minimum set of SNPs that efficiently represent larger haplotype blocks. This approach dramatically reduces genotyping costs while maintaining coverage of approximately 80-90% of common genetic variation in the genome.
GWAS Implementation
In research settings, GWAS are conducted by scanning the genome for SNPs associated with disease in case-control cohorts. These studies typically require thousands of participants and rigorous statistical methods to account for multiple testing and population stratification. Significant SNPs emerging from GWAS (or known from prior studies) are then prioritized for risk prediction models and personal genomic reports. The strongest associations are validated through replication studies and functional characterization to understand biological mechanisms underlying disease associations.
Tag SNP Approach
Efficient Genome Coverage
Using intelligently selected tag SNPs allows broad genome coverage without testing every single variant. These representative markers can capture the genetic variation of nearby SNPs through linkage disequilibrium, providing up to 85-90% coverage of common variation with just a fraction of the total SNPs.
Commercial Applications
Illumina's genotyping arrays employ a tag SNP approach with their Infinium assay to efficiently cover susceptibility loci for human diseases. Other platforms like Affymetrix and Thermo Fisher also utilize tag SNP strategies in their commercial genotyping solutions, enabling cost-effective population-scale genetic studies.
Reduced Genotyping Burden
This strategy reduces genotyping burden while still capturing most common genetic differences across individuals. By carefully selecting 300,000-1,000,000 tag SNPs, researchers can effectively represent the majority of the 10+ million common variants in the human genome.
Population Considerations
Tag SNP selection is typically optimized for specific ancestral populations, as linkage disequilibrium patterns vary between populations. Multi-ethnic tag SNP panels include markers that perform well across diverse human populations to improve cross-population applicability.
Statistical Power
The tag SNP approach maintains statistical power for genetic association studies while dramatically reducing costs. This enables larger sample sizes, which has proven crucial for identifying disease-associated variants with modest effect sizes typical in complex traits and common diseases.
Bioinformatics Pipelines for SNP Interpretation
1
Variant Calling
If whole genome or exome sequencing is used, raw sequencing reads are aligned to a reference genome and variants are called. The Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) is a widely used software suite – considered an "industry standard for identifying SNPs and indels in germline DNA" – that produces a list of identified SNP variants (often in VCF format) after rigorous quality control. This process involves multiple steps including base quality score recalibration (BQSR), local realignment around indels, and variant quality score recalibration (VQSR). Other popular variant callers include Samtools, FreeBayes, and DeepVariant, each with specific strengths for different sequencing technologies and experimental designs.
2
Genotype Data Management
Tools like PLINK facilitate handling large SNP datasets and perform quality control filters (e.g. removing SNPs or samples with too much missing data) as well as basic association analyses. PLINK is a free, open-source toolset for whole-genome association analysis designed to efficiently analyze genotype/phenotype data. Advanced QC procedures typically include filtering based on minor allele frequency (MAF), Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE), linkage disequilibrium (LD) pruning, and identification of population stratification using principal component analysis (PCA). Other platforms such as GEMMA, BOLT-LMM, and SAIGE extend these capabilities for complex study designs and mixed models that account for relatedness between samples.
3
Variant Annotation
Once SNPs of interest are identified, annotation tools interpret their biological significance. Major software include ANNOVAR, SnpEff, and VEP (Variant Effect Predictor), which attach information such as what gene a SNP lies in, whether it changes protein-coding sequence, or if it has known disease associations. These tools integrate multiple databases like dbSNP, ClinVar, OMIM, and gnomAD to provide population frequency data, evolutionary conservation scores, and clinical significance of variants. Functional annotation also includes predicting the impact of non-coding variants using resources like ENCODE, Roadmap Epigenomics, and tools such as CADD, FATHMM, and SIFT that use machine learning to estimate deleteriousness scores for variants.
4
Risk Scoring and Interpretation
To go from annotated SNPs to a personal risk report, algorithms aggregate the information. For monogenic (single-gene) conditions, interpretation might focus on the presence of a high-risk mutation. For complex traits, polygenic risk scoring tools like PRSice or LDpred are used to compute a polygenic risk score (PRS). Modern approaches now incorporate Bayesian methods, machine learning, and neural networks to improve prediction accuracy. The clinical utility of these scores is being evaluated in initiatives like the eMERGE Network and UK Biobank, which integrate genetic risk with electronic health records. Interpretation frameworks like the ACMG/AMP guidelines for variant classification help standardize how genetic findings are reported and used in clinical decision-making. Post-analytical tools like Genomics England PanelApp and ClinGen provide curated gene-disease validity assessments to support accurate interpretation.
Variant Annotation Tools
These specialized bioinformatics tools translate raw genetic variants into biologically meaningful information about function and potential clinical significance.
ANNOVAR
A comprehensive tool for functional annotation of genetic variants detected from diverse genomes.
  • Annotates SNPs with gene information
  • Identifies functional consequences
  • Links to disease databases
  • Supports multiple reference genome builds
  • Efficiently handles whole-genome data
  • Provides population frequency annotations
ANNOVAR is particularly valued for its speed and ability to use both gene-based and region-based annotations, making it suitable for both research and clinical applications.
SnpEff
Genetic variant annotation and functional effect prediction toolbox.
  • Predicts effects of variants on genes
  • Categorizes variants by impact
  • Generates detailed reports
  • Supports over 38,000 genomes
  • Provides comprehensive statistical reports
  • Integrates with Galaxy platform
SnpEff excels in classifying variants by impact severity (HIGH, MODERATE, LOW, MODIFIER) and produces extensive HTML summary reports with useful statistics and charts for quality control.
VEP (Variant Effect Predictor)
Determines the effect of variants on genes, transcripts, and protein sequence.
  • Analyzes coding consequences
  • Identifies regulatory regions
  • Integrates with multiple databases
  • Offers REST API for programmatic access
  • Provides extensive filtering options
  • Supports custom annotations
Developed by Ensembl, VEP offers exceptional flexibility through its web interface, command-line tool, and API access. It's particularly strong in cross-species annotations and regulatory feature analysis.
These tools represent critical components in modern bioinformatics pipelines, transforming raw variant calls into actionable insights about genetic variation. Each offers unique advantages for specific research contexts and can be selected based on project needs and computational resources.
SNPedia and Personal Genome Interpretation
SNPedia Resource
SNPedia is a wiki-style database of SNP effects that supports personal genome interpretation. It serves as a database for personal genome annotation, interpretation, and analysis. Founded in 2006, SNPedia contains information on over 100,000 clinically relevant SNPs, including their associations with diseases, traits, and drug responses.
The resource links extensively to primary literature and provides a standardized format for representing genetic information. Users can explore specific SNPs through an intuitive interface that categorizes variations by clinical significance, repute (beneficial vs. harmful), and magnitude of effect.
Promethease Tool
Tools like Promethease can take a raw genotype file and generate a report by querying SNPedia, providing individuals with insights about their genetic variations. Promethease processes data from various direct-to-consumer testing companies like 23andMe, AncestryDNA, and others.
Reports are typically generated within minutes and prioritize genetic variants by their potential health impact. The tool highlights "good news" and "bad news" findings, includes magnitude ratings for each variant, and provides references to scientific publications. Users can filter results by medical condition, drug response, or trait categories to better understand their personal genetic landscape.
Comprehensive Pipeline
These pipelines and tools, combined, enable researchers and companies to go from raw genetic data to meaningful health risk insights for individuals. The complete workflow typically involves quality control steps, variant calling, annotation through multiple databases, and interpretation using both automated algorithms and expert review.
Modern interpretation pipelines incorporate machine learning approaches to better classify variants of uncertain significance (VUS). They also contextualize genetic findings within a person's family history, environmental exposures, and lifestyle factors. As genomic knowledge expands, these interpretation systems continuously update to incorporate new research findings, improving the accuracy and clinical utility of personal genomic information.
Statistical Models for SNP-Based Risk Prediction
1
Logistic Regression
Traditionally, logistic regression has been used in GWAS to find associations between individual SNPs and disease status (producing an odds ratio for each SNP). This statistical approach identifies SNPs where the presence of a specific allele significantly increases or decreases disease risk, allowing researchers to build initial risk prediction models based on a handful of variants.
2
Polygenic Risk Scores
A PRS is essentially a weighted sum of risk alleles an individual carries across numerous SNPs associated with a trait. Each SNP's weight is typically its effect size derived from large GWAS. These scores have demonstrated predictive utility across numerous complex diseases including coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, and breast cancer, with increasing predictive power as GWAS sample sizes grow.
3
Additive Model
Summing across variants assumes an additive model of genetic risk – while simplistic (it ignores gene-gene interactions), this additive model aligns with evidence that common disease risk is highly polygenic with many small, independent effects. Studies consistently show that despite this simplification, additive models capture a substantial portion of heritability for most complex traits, making them computationally efficient for large-scale applications.
4
PRS Calculation Methods
PRS calculation methods include "clumping and thresholding" as implemented in tools like PRSice and PLINK, and more complex Bayesian approaches (e.g. LDpred) that use linkage disequilibrium patterns to weight SNPs without strict pruning. Recent innovations include penalized regression methods like elastic net and LASSO that can automatically select the most informative SNPs while controlling for overfitting.
5
Machine Learning Approaches
Advanced machine learning algorithms like random forests, gradient boosting, and neural networks are increasingly applied to genomic prediction. Unlike traditional PRS, these methods can capture non-linear relationships and complex interactions between genetic variants, potentially improving predictive accuracy for certain phenotypes where such interactions play important biological roles.
6
Integrative Risk Models
State-of-the-art risk prediction now combines polygenic scores with traditional clinical risk factors, family history, and other -omics data (e.g., transcriptomics, metabolomics). These integrative approaches significantly outperform models based solely on genetic or clinical factors alone, representing the future direction of precision medicine applications.
Polygenic Risk Score Calculation
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) quantify genetic liability for complex traits by aggregating information from multiple genetic variants. The calculation process follows these key steps:
1
Identify Risk Variants
Select SNPs associated with the disease from large-scale GWAS studies. This typically involves thousands to millions of genetic variants that have reached statistical significance (p < 5×10^-8) or using a more inclusive threshold to capture more signal. Quality control steps ensure only reliable markers are included.
2
Assign Weights
Each SNP receives a weight based on its effect size (beta coefficient or odds ratio) from the discovery GWAS. These weights represent the strength of association between each variant and the trait of interest. More sophisticated methods may adjust these weights to account for linkage disequilibrium between markers.
3
Calculate Weighted Sum
Multiply each risk allele (0, 1, or 2 copies) in an individual's genome by its corresponding weight and sum across all selected SNPs. This creates a raw score that represents the cumulative genetic burden across all variants. The formula typically follows: PRS = Σ(weight_i × allele_count_i) for all SNPs i.
4
Normalize Score
Compare the individual's raw score to the population distribution to create an interpretable metric. This may involve standardization (z-scoring), percentile ranking, or other statistical approaches to contextualize the score. The normalized score allows for risk stratification and comparison across individuals.
This process creates a single numerical value representing an individual's genetic predisposition to a particular disease or trait, based on their unique combination of genetic variants. PRS can be used for risk stratification in clinical settings, identifying high-risk individuals for preventive interventions, and enabling more personalized approaches to healthcare. The predictive power of PRS continues to improve as larger and more diverse genetic studies provide better estimates of SNP effect sizes.
Machine Learning Models for Genetic Risk Prediction
Beyond Linear Models
Standard PRS are linear models and generally explain only a small percentage of variance for a trait. ML methods can potentially capture non-linear effects or interactions between SNPs that PRS miss. Recent research has shown that incorporating gene-environment interactions and tissue-specific expression patterns through ML approaches can significantly improve predictive performance for complex traits like obesity and cardiovascular disease.
Advanced Algorithms
Algorithms like random forests, gradient-boosted trees, and neural networks have been tested on genotype data. These models can take a high-dimensional SNP dataset and learn complex patterns, including SNP–SNP interactions (epistasis). Deep learning approaches, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and graph neural networks (GNNs), have shown promise in capturing the hierarchical structure of genetic data and leveraging biological pathway information to improve prediction accuracy.
Research Examples
One study found that a random forest model outperformed a linear model for type 2 diabetes prediction by capturing non-linear relationships. Another recent approach used an ML-driven feature selection to pick a small panel of influential SNPs for coronary artery disease. At Stanford, researchers developed a deep learning model that incorporated both genomic and clinical data to predict atrial fibrillation risk with 79% accuracy, compared to 65% for traditional PRS approaches. The UK Biobank project has validated several ML models across 50+ phenotypes, consistently showing 10-15% performance improvements.
Practical Challenges
Despite these advances, purely ML models face challenges – the high dimensionality of genomic data and relatively small effect sizes mean there is risk of overfitting, and results must be validated carefully on independent cohorts. Interpretability remains a significant concern, as complex ML models often function as "black boxes," making it difficult to understand which genetic factors drive predictions. Computational demands for training these models at scale can be prohibitive, requiring specialized high-performance computing resources and optimized implementations.
Implementation Strategies
To address these challenges, hybrid approaches combining traditional PRS with ML techniques have shown promise. Transfer learning from large pretrained models can help overcome limited sample sizes in specific disease cohorts. Ensemble methods that combine multiple algorithms often outperform single-algorithm approaches. Explainable AI techniques like SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values are increasingly being applied to interpret ML genetic risk models and identify key contributing variants for clinical interpretation.
23andMe's Approach to Polygenic Scoring
Machine Learning Integration
To quantify the cumulative impact of many variants on risk, machine learning methods are used to construct statistical models that generate polygenic scores. These methods can analyze hundreds of thousands of genetic variants simultaneously to identify patterns associated with specific traits or conditions that would be impossible to detect manually.
Advanced Regression Techniques
They apply advanced regressions over millions of SNPs to derive a PRS model. This process involves sophisticated statistical methods including LASSO regression, ridge regression, and elastic net approaches that handle high-dimensional genomic data effectively while controlling for overfitting and population stratification effects.
Health Predisposition Reports
23andMe's Health Predisposition reports include traits like breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, among others. These reports are developed using data from large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) involving hundreds of thousands of individuals, and are regularly updated as new research emerges to improve accuracy and clinical utility.
Report Classification
These reports often distinguish between "genetic health risk" reports for single variants (which meet strict FDA criteria) and "polygenic" reports based on 23andMe research (which use PRS models and are marked as such). This distinction helps users understand the different levels of clinical validation behind various predictions, while maintaining transparency about the methodological approach and limitations of each type of analysis.
Validation and Accuracy Assessment
Before releasing new polygenic risk models, 23andMe conducts extensive validation using both internal datasets and external research cohorts. They measure model performance using metrics like AUC (Area Under the Curve), positive predictive value, and calibration curves to ensure reliable risk stratification across different populations and demographic groups.
Types of Health Conditions Predicted Using SNPs
1
Cardiovascular Disease
Conditions like coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation have significant polygenic components. A high PRS for CAD can flag individuals with elevated inherited risk of heart attacks. Studies have shown that individuals in the top 5% of CAD polygenic risk scores have a 3-5 fold increased risk compared to the general population. These scores can be particularly valuable when combined with traditional risk factors like blood pressure and cholesterol levels to create more comprehensive risk assessments.
2
Metabolic Disorders
Type 2 diabetes is a prime example of a polygenic disease with hundreds of associated variants. Similarly, polygenic scores exist for traits like obesity (BMI), cholesterol levels, and hypertension. Recent research has demonstrated that individuals with high polygenic risk scores for metabolic disorders can significantly reduce their risk through lifestyle modifications such as diet and exercise. Some studies suggest that genetically-informed interventions may be more effective than one-size-fits-all approaches.
3
Cancers
While some cancers have well-known high-risk mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2 for breast and ovarian cancer), there are also polygenic risk scores that capture the combined influence of many common variants on cancer risk. For example, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer all have established polygenic risk scores that can identify individuals with 2-3 times higher risk than average. These scores are increasingly being integrated into screening guidelines to determine who might benefit from earlier or more frequent cancer screenings.
4
Neurodegenerative Diseases
SNP-based risk prediction is also applied to conditions like Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis. A well-known example is the APOE gene: the ε4 variant is a single SNP that strongly increases Alzheimer's risk by 3-12 fold depending on whether a person has one or two copies. Beyond APOE, researchers have identified dozens of additional variants that collectively contribute to Alzheimer's risk. Similar polygenic approaches are being applied to other neurological conditions to improve early detection and facilitate preventive interventions.
5
Psychiatric Disorders
Conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and depression have substantial genetic components that can be captured through polygenic risk scores. For example, schizophrenia PRS models can incorporate thousands of variants to identify individuals with elevated genetic risk. While these scores are not yet diagnostic, they help researchers better understand disease mechanisms and may eventually contribute to early intervention strategies. The polygenic nature of these conditions reflects their complex biological underpinnings involving multiple neurological pathways.
Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction
Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Modern genetic analysis has revolutionized our ability to predict and potentially prevent these conditions through early intervention. SNP-based risk assessment offers a powerful tool for identifying individuals with elevated genetic susceptibility.
Polygenic Components
Conditions like coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation have significant polygenic components that can be assessed through SNP analysis. Rather than a single mutation, these conditions result from the cumulative effect of hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each contributing a small amount to overall risk. Research has identified over 300 significant loci associated with CAD across the human genome.
Risk Stratification
Studies have shown that individuals in the top few percent of a CAD polygenic score have several-fold higher risk of heart disease. This genetic risk is independent of traditional risk factors like cholesterol, blood pressure, and smoking. For example, people in the top 5% of polygenic risk have approximately 3-4 times higher likelihood of experiencing early-onset coronary artery disease compared to those with average genetic risk profiles. This stratification allows for targeted preventive strategies.
Consumer Reports
23andMe and other services offer a "heart disease" genetic risk report that integrates numerous SNPs to provide personalized risk assessments. These reports typically analyze between 500-1,000 SNPs associated with cardiovascular conditions, calculating relative risk compared to the general population. Many reports also include information on gene-environment interactions, explaining how lifestyle factors might amplify or mitigate genetic predispositions. Consumers can use this information to make informed health decisions in consultation with healthcare providers.
Clinical Applications
Polygenic risk for atrial fibrillation or stroke can be combined with clinical factors to identify high-risk patients who might benefit from preventive interventions. Physicians may recommend more frequent screenings, earlier statin therapy, or more aggressive lifestyle modifications for patients with elevated genetic risk. Some medical centers have begun implementing polygenic risk scores in clinical practice, especially for patients with family histories of cardiovascular disease but without obvious traditional risk factors. This approach enables precision medicine strategies that optimize prevention efforts based on individual genetic profiles.
The integration of polygenic risk scores into standard cardiovascular care represents a significant advancement in predictive medicine. As genomic research continues to progress, these predictive models will likely become more accurate and clinically valuable, potentially transforming how we approach cardiovascular disease prevention at both individual and population levels.
Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders
Type 2 Diabetes
Type 2 diabetes is a prime example of a polygenic disease influenced by hundreds of genetic variants. 23andMe released a comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes report using a PRS of many thousands of SNPs, representing one of the most advanced applications of polygenic risk scoring in consumer genetics.
  • Integrates thousands of genetic variants across multiple chromosomes
  • Provides relative risk assessment compared to general population
  • Can be combined with lifestyle factors and family history for more precise predictions
  • Identifies individuals who might benefit from early screening protocols
  • Research shows that genetic predisposition can be partially offset by lifestyle interventions
Obesity and BMI
Polygenic scores exist for traits like obesity (BMI), which contribute to conditions like diabetes and heart disease. These scores can identify individuals with genetic predispositions toward weight gain independently of environmental factors, allowing for targeted intervention strategies and personalized health recommendations.
  • Predicts genetic predisposition to higher BMI across lifespan
  • Identifies individuals who may benefit from early intervention and tailored dietary approaches
  • Helps distinguish genetic from environmental factors in weight management
  • Can predict response to different diet types and exercise regimens
  • Provides insights into metabolic efficiency and potential fat distribution patterns
Cholesterol and Hypertension
SNP-based models can predict genetic risk for elevated cholesterol levels and hypertension, two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. These polygenic risk scores can identify individuals at heightened risk despite having no family history or obvious clinical indicators, enabling proactive management before symptoms develop.
  • Identifies genetic hypercholesterolemia risk beyond traditional family history assessment
  • Predicts blood pressure tendencies and potential salt sensitivity
  • Guides preventive screening recommendations and optimal monitoring frequency
  • Can help determine which individuals might benefit most from early statin therapy
  • Provides insight into potential medication responsiveness for both conditions
Cancer Risk Assessment Through SNPs
High-Risk Mutations
While some cancers (like breast and colon cancer) have well-known high-risk mutations (e.g. BRCA1/2), there are also polygenic risk scores that capture the combined influence of many common variants on cancer risk. These scores integrate hundreds to thousands of SNPs, each contributing a small effect that, when combined, can significantly alter an individual's lifetime risk. Research shows that combining both rare high-penetrance mutations and common low-risk variants provides the most comprehensive risk assessment.
Breast Cancer
A PRS for breast cancer can stratify women into different risk brackets, especially when used alongside family history. Studies have shown that women in the highest PRS quintile have a 2-3 fold increased risk compared to population average. This information can guide decisions about the age to begin mammography screening, the frequency of screening, and consideration of preventive medications like tamoxifen. Companies like Myriad Genetics now incorporate polygenic risk into their hereditary cancer tests.
Prostate Cancer
There is active research and some direct-to-consumer offerings for PRS on prostate cancer, helping identify men who might benefit from earlier screening. Men with high polygenic risk scores may be recommended to begin PSA testing up to a decade earlier than standard guidelines suggest. Recent studies have identified over 160 SNPs associated with prostate cancer risk, and when combined into a PRS, they can identify men with up to a 5.7-fold increased risk compared to the population average. This has significant implications for personalized screening protocols.
Colorectal Cancer
Polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer can complement traditional risk factors to improve screening recommendations. Individuals with high polygenic risk may be advised to begin colonoscopy screening before age 45, the current general population recommendation. These scores are particularly valuable for individuals with a family history but no identified pathogenic variants in genes like APC or the Lynch syndrome genes. Research indicates that combining environmental factors (diet, exercise, smoking) with polygenic risk provides the most accurate prediction models for personalized colorectal cancer prevention strategies.
Neurodegenerative Disease Risk Prediction
Alzheimer's Disease
SNP-based risk prediction is applied to conditions like Alzheimer's disease. A well-known example is the APOE gene: the ε4 variant is a single SNP (actually an allele defined by two SNPs) that strongly increases Alzheimer's risk. Carriers of one copy have a 3-4x increased risk, while those with two copies face up to 15x higher risk.
Personal genomics reports will note if someone has APOE-ε4 (e.g. 23andMe's Late-Onset Alzheimer's report), which is a case where a single polymorphism has a large effect. However, it's important to understand that having APOE-ε4 doesn't guarantee disease development—it only increases probabilistic risk.
Beyond APOE, researchers have constructed broader Alzheimer's PRS including many small-effect SNPs. These more comprehensive models aim to capture the full spectrum of genetic risk factors beyond the well-known APOE variant. Some studies suggest these expanded models can improve risk stratification significantly.
Parkinson's Disease
Similar to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease has both high-impact variants (like mutations in LRRK2 and GBA genes) and polygenic components. PRS models for Parkinson's are still evolving but show promise for earlier intervention opportunities.
Other Neurodegenerative Conditions
Huntington's disease represents a different model, where a single gene expansion mutation is fully penetrant. In contrast, conditions like ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) have both familial forms with strong genetic drivers and sporadic forms where polygenic risk scores are being developed.
Psychiatric and Autoimmune Disorders
Genetic risk assessment for complex disorders involves analyzing multiple genetic markers across the genome to calculate an individual's predisposition.
Psychiatric Disorders
Polygenic scores exist for psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia and depression, although these are not as commonly delivered to consumers yet due to varying predictive power.
  • Schizophrenia - Shows one of the strongest genetic signals with hundreds of associated variants
  • Major depressive disorder - More challenging to predict due to heterogeneous nature
  • Bipolar disorder - Genetic overlap with schizophrenia complicates specific prediction
  • Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
  • Autism spectrum disorders
Current psychiatric PRS models typically explain 5-15% of variance in disease risk, which is significant but highlights the importance of environmental factors.
Autoimmune Diseases
SNP-based risk models have been developed for various autoimmune conditions, helping to identify genetic predisposition before symptoms appear.
  • Rheumatoid arthritis - Strong HLA region associations plus multiple other loci
  • Lupus - Complex genetic architecture with over 100 risk loci identified
  • Multiple sclerosis - Both HLA and non-HLA genetic factors contribute to risk
  • Type 1 diabetes - One of the better-understood autoimmune conditions genetically
  • Inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's and ulcerative colitis)
  • Celiac disease
Autoimmune conditions often share genetic risk factors, suggesting common pathways in immune dysregulation that may enable broader risk assessment approaches.
Consumer Availability
These conditions are not as commonly included in consumer genetic testing reports due to lower predictive power and complex interpretation.
  • Ongoing research to improve models through larger sample sizes and diverse populations
  • Ethical considerations for reporting potentially stigmatizing conditions
  • Need for professional interpretation to avoid misunderstanding of probabilistic risk
  • Regulatory limitations on direct-to-consumer reporting of certain conditions
  • Concerns about psychological impact of receiving risk information
Scientific advancements in this field are rapid, with predictive models improving yearly as more genome-wide association studies are published and computational methods advance.
While genetic testing for these disorders shows promise for early intervention and personalized treatment approaches, results should always be considered in the context of family history, environmental exposures, and clinical assessment by healthcare professionals.
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Reports
Companies like 23andMe, Ancestry, and others offer various genetic testing services that analyze DNA samples to provide information about health risks, ancestry, and traits. These reports vary in scientific validity, regulatory oversight, and interpretive value.
Health Predisposition Reports
23andMe's Health Predisposition reports include traits like breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, among others. These reports analyze specific genetic variants associated with increased risk for developing certain conditions, but do not diagnose disease or guarantee future health outcomes. Risk calculations are based on studies primarily conducted in specific populations, which may limit their applicability to individuals from different genetic backgrounds.
FDA-Regulated Reports
"Genetic health risk" reports for single variants meet strict FDA criteria (e.g. BRCA1/BRCA2 selected variants, LDLR for familial hypercholesterolemia). These tests have demonstrated analytical validity and clinical relevance. The FDA requires companies to prove users can understand test results without professional guidance, though genetic counseling is still recommended for proper interpretation and follow-up. These tests only examine specific mutations, not comprehensive genetic analysis for conditions.
Research-Based Reports
"Polygenic" reports based on company research use PRS models and are marked as such to distinguish them from FDA-approved tests. These scores aggregate effects from thousands of genetic variants, each with small individual impacts. The scientific validity varies widely between conditions, with some models showing stronger predictive power than others. Companies typically update these models as new research emerges, meaning risk estimates may change over time as the science evolves.
Probabilistic Nature
Having a "high risk" genetic profile does not guarantee disease; it simply indicates a higher likelihood relative to others, assuming typical environment and lifestyle. Many common diseases are influenced more by environmental factors than genetics alone. Risk estimates are typically presented as comparisons to population averages rather than absolute probabilities. Companies use different methods to calculate and communicate risk, making direct comparisons between testing services difficult for consumers.
Interpretation of these reports should ideally be done in consultation with healthcare providers who can contextualize genetic findings with personal and family medical history. The value of these tests varies significantly based on individual circumstances, family history, and the specific conditions being assessed.
Accuracy of SNP-Based Risk Prediction
Polygenic risk score distributions for cases (disease) and controls (healthy) often overlap significantly, indicating modest predictive power. In typical examples, the PRS achieves an AUC of ~0.605, only slightly better than random chance (0.5). Individuals with higher PRS tend to have higher risk on average, but there is substantial variation – many people with "high" scores stay disease-free and vice versa.
As illustrated in the chart above, even individuals at the 99th percentile of genetic risk typically face only a 3x increased relative risk compared to the population average. This demonstrates a key limitation of current SNP-based prediction methods - while they can identify statistically significant differences in risk, these differences often aren't large enough for reliable individual-level prediction.
The overlap between risk distributions highlights several important considerations. First, environmental factors and lifestyle choices frequently outweigh genetic predisposition for many common diseases. Second, most commercial tests examine only common genetic variants while missing rare mutations that might have larger effects. Third, genetic risk is inherently probabilistic rather than deterministic - it represents tendencies rather than certainties.
For clinical applications, this means polygenic risk scores are most valuable as one component of a comprehensive risk assessment rather than as standalone predictors. They may help identify subpopulations who might benefit from enhanced screening or preventive measures, but should be interpreted cautiously in individual cases. The scientific community continues to refine these models by incorporating more variants, accounting for gene-gene interactions, and integrating non-genetic risk factors.
Limitations of SNP-Based Prediction: Moderate Discrimination
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) provide useful but limited disease risk information, with several key performance metrics indicating their constraints:
0.65
Typical AUC
The 23andMe polygenic score for type 2 diabetes achieved an area-under-curve (AUC) of about 0.59–0.65 in validation, meaning its predictive performance is only modestly better than chance (0.5). This modest improvement highlights a fundamental limitation in using genetic variants alone for disease prediction.
0.60
Disease AUC
A PRS for a disease with 20% prevalence might have an AUC around 0.60, reflecting a large overlap in score distributions between people who will and won't develop the disease. This substantial overlap means many individuals with high scores never develop the condition, while others with low scores do.
3x
Risk Elevation
Someone in the top 5% of a polygenic risk score might have a risk on the order of 2–3 times the population average for that condition, which is a significant elevation but not a certainty. For a disease with 10% lifetime risk, this means increasing risk to 20-30%, leaving a 70-80% chance of remaining disease-free.
20%
Explained Variance
Most polygenic scores explain only a modest fraction (typically 5-20%) of the total genetic contribution to disease risk. The remaining "missing heritability" represents genetic factors not captured by current GWAS studies, including rare variants, structural variations, and gene-environment interactions.
These limitations underscore why genomic prediction remains probabilistic rather than deterministic, and why environmental and lifestyle factors continue to play critical roles in disease development alongside genetic predisposition.
Incomplete Genetic Knowledge
Missing Heritability
Our understanding of complex disease genetics is still incomplete. There may be many risk variants yet to be discovered, including rare variants with large effects or structural variants that SNP arrays don't capture. Twin and family studies suggest higher heritability than what genetic variants can currently explain, pointing to this "missing heritability" problem.
Partial Genetic Liability
Current polygenic scores capture only a part of genetic liability, leaving "unknown information" due to missing heritability and unmodeled environmental factors. Most polygenic risk scores are developed using data primarily from European populations, limiting their applicability and accuracy across diverse ethnic backgrounds.
Limited Explanation
Even if millions of common SNPs are included, they usually explain only a fraction of the total heritability of a disease (often 5–20% for complex traits). For conditions like schizophrenia or autism, where heritability is estimated at 60-80%, current models might explain less than a quarter of the genetic contribution.
Gene-Gene Interactions
Most current models assume genes act independently (additive effects), but complex interactions between genes (epistasis) likely play a significant role in disease risk that isn't captured in current polygenic risk scores.
Non-Coding Regions
Much of the genome consists of non-coding regions whose functions remain poorly understood. These regions may contain regulatory elements that affect disease risk in ways not currently modeled in genetic risk prediction.
Environmental and Lifestyle Factors
1
1
Genetic Predisposition
SNP-based risk scores provide baseline genetic risk but don't account for environmental influences. These scores reflect inherited variants but cannot predict how genes will be expressed under different conditions or how they interact with other biological systems.
2
2
Diet and Nutrition
Dietary choices can significantly modify genetic risk for many conditions. Nutrigenomics research shows that specific nutrients can alter gene expression, either amplifying or suppressing genetic vulnerabilities through epigenetic mechanisms. Mediterranean and plant-based diets, for example, have been shown to reduce risk even in genetically predisposed individuals.
3
3
Physical Activity
Exercise habits can mitigate genetic risk for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Regular physical activity influences how genes are expressed and can counteract genetic predispositions for conditions like type 2 diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Studies show even moderate activity can reduce risk by 30-50% regardless of genetic factors.
4
4
Environmental Exposures
Factors like smoking, pollution, stress, or chemical exposures can amplify genetic risk or cause disease despite low genetic risk. These exposures can trigger inflammatory responses, oxidative stress, and DNA damage that overwhelm even robust genetic protective mechanisms. Urban environments with high pollution levels, for instance, significantly increase asthma risk regardless of genetic profile.
A person with a high-risk genetic profile might remain healthy if they maintain a healthy lifestyle or if other protective factors intervene. The interplay between genes and environment is complex and bidirectional. For example, individuals with BRCA mutations can reduce breast cancer risk through regular screening, prophylactic measures, and lifestyle modifications. Conversely, someone with a "low-risk" genetic profile could still develop the illness due to adverse environmental exposures, chronic stress, or accumulated lifestyle factors over time. This gene-environment interaction explains why identical twins often have different health outcomes despite sharing identical DNA.
Disclaimer on Risk Reports
Current prediction models based on SNPs generally do not integrate non-genetic factors (unless the model explicitly adds them in, as some 23andMe reports do for context). This means the predictions are not absolute risks but baseline genetic predispositions that represent only one piece of a complex health puzzle.
As 23andMe's test disclaimer notes, their genetic risk report "does not describe a person's overall risk of developing the disease" – it only reports whether certain risk variants are present. The presence of risk variants does not guarantee disease development, while their absence doesn't eliminate risk entirely.
These tests provide probabilistic information. They are not intended to diagnose disease or tell your exact fate. Healthcare providers often need to contextualize genetic risk alongside traditional risk factors such as age, sex, family history, lifestyle habits, and environmental exposures.
Understanding the limitations of genetic risk reports is essential for proper interpretation. Most commercial tests only examine a small subset of known risk variants. Additionally, the clinical utility of many genetic markers remains an active area of research, with varying levels of evidence supporting their predictive value.
It's important to note that regulatory bodies like the FDA have specific requirements for direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Companies must clearly communicate to consumers that these tests should not be used for medical decision-making without consultation with qualified healthcare professionals who can provide comprehensive risk assessment.
For optimal value, genetic risk information should be incorporated into a holistic health assessment that considers all relevant factors. This integrated approach allows for personalized prevention strategies and more meaningful risk estimation than genetic information alone can provide.
Population Bias and Ancestry Limitations

1

2

3

4

1
European-Centric Studies
Most large genetic studies have been done in European-ancestry populations, with over 80% of GWAS participants being of European descent
2
Cross-Population Accuracy Drop
PRS accuracy drops in underrepresented ancestries, sometimes by 50-70% when applied across populations
3
Genetic Architecture Differences
Allele frequencies and linkage patterns differ between populations, affecting how variants are associated with traits
4
Attenuated Predictive Power
Polygenic scores show reduced accuracy across populations, limiting clinical utility in diverse settings
The accuracy of SNP risk models can drop substantially in individuals of ancestries that were underrepresented in the GWAS used to train the model. Consumers are often warned that ethnicity may affect the relevance of each genetic risk report.
This "portability problem" means that the same genetic variant might have different effects in different populations. For example, a risk factor identified in European populations might not confer the same level of risk in African, Asian, or admixed populations.
Historical biases in research funding and participant recruitment have contributed to this disparity. As of 2021, individuals of African, Hispanic, or Indigenous ancestry represent less than 4% of participants in genomic studies, despite making up a significant portion of the global population.
This ancestry gap creates a fundamental health equity issue - as genomic medicine advances, populations not well-represented in research databases may benefit less from these technological advances, potentially widening existing healthcare disparities.
Efforts to Improve Cross-Ancestry Performance
The field of genetic risk prediction is actively working to address ancestral bias through several approaches:
Multi-Ancestry Data Integration
Efforts are underway to improve cross-ancestry performance by combining data from multiple ancestries in genetic studies.
  • Inclusion of diverse populations in GWAS
  • Development of ancestry-specific reference panels
  • Meta-analysis across multiple ancestry groups
  • Harmonization of phenotype definitions across populations
  • Targeted recruitment of underrepresented groups
  • Creation of global biobank initiatives like All of Us and H3Africa
These integration efforts aim to ensure risk models work equally well across all human populations, rather than primarily in European-derived groups.
New Machine Learning Methods
Researchers are developing new ML methods specifically designed to work across different ancestral backgrounds.
  • Transfer learning approaches
  • Population-adaptive algorithms
  • Methods that account for population structure
  • Bayesian frameworks that incorporate ancestry information
  • Deep learning models capturing complex genetic architecture
  • Ensemble methods combining ancestry-specific and cross-ancestry models
These computational innovations help overcome the limitations of traditional statistical approaches when applied to diverse populations with different genetic architectures.
Current Limitations
Despite these efforts, individuals of non-European descent may still get less reliable risk estimates with current technology.
  • Persistent representation gaps in research
  • Biological differences in genetic architecture
  • Need for ancestry-specific validation
  • Limited understanding of population-specific modifiers
  • Socioeconomic barriers to research participation
  • Ethical concerns regarding ancestry categorization
Addressing these limitations requires coordinated efforts from researchers, funding agencies, healthcare systems, and communities to ensure equitable genetic medicine.
The improvement of cross-ancestry performance represents not just a technical challenge but an ethical imperative to ensure that advances in precision medicine benefit all populations equally. As methods improve and datasets become more diverse, we expect to see gradual improvements in risk prediction accuracy across all ancestry groups.
Model Assumptions and Limitations
Additive Effects Assumption
Polygenic models assume additive effects of SNPs and typically ignore gene-gene or gene-environment interactions. If there are synergistic effects (interaction between certain genes) or threshold effects, a simple PRS won't capture them. This simplification may lead to underestimation of risk for individuals with specific combinations of variants.
Statistical Estimation Errors
The effect sizes used in PRS are statistical estimates with error; if those estimates are imprecise, the resulting score adds noise. Multiple testing corrections and sample size limitations can influence the reliability of these estimates, potentially leading to both false positives and false negatives in risk assessment.
Advanced Model Development
Advanced models (like ML algorithms described earlier) aim to address some of these issues, but they are not yet widely deployed in consumer genetics. These models require extensive validation across diverse populations and rigorous clinical testing before they can be integrated into standard practice.
Population Specificity
PRS developed in one ancestral population often perform poorly when applied to individuals from different ancestral backgrounds. This limitation stems from differences in genetic architecture, linkage disequilibrium patterns, and allele frequencies across populations, leading to potential bias and reduced accuracy.
Incomplete Genetic Coverage
Current genotyping arrays and imputation methods may miss rare variants or structural variations that contribute to disease risk. Additionally, most PRS models do not account for epigenetic modifications that can significantly influence gene expression and disease susceptibility independent of DNA sequence.
Clinical Utility and Risk Communication
1
Risk Identification
PRS identifies individuals with elevated genetic risk for specific conditions, allowing for targeted preventive care rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. These scores aggregate information from thousands of genetic variants to create a comprehensive risk profile.
2
Clinical Contextualization
Healthcare providers interpret genetic risk alongside other factors such as family history, lifestyle, environmental exposures, and traditional clinical risk factors. This holistic approach ensures genetic information doesn't exist in isolation but contributes to a complete risk assessment.
3
Personalized Recommendations
Tailored screening or prevention strategies are developed based on an individual's specific risk profile. This might include earlier or more frequent screenings, lifestyle modifications, preventive medications, or enhanced monitoring for high-risk individuals.
4
Improved Outcomes
Early intervention based on genetic risk can prevent disease progression or onset entirely. Studies have shown that risk-stratified approaches to prevention can be more effective and cost-efficient than universal screening programs.
Even when a polygenic score identifies someone as "high genetic risk," turning that knowledge into action is not straightforward. If the baseline risk of a disease is small, even a 3× increase might still be a low absolute risk. On the other hand, for common diseases, a 3× higher risk could be concerning but might overlap with risks conferred by modifiable factors.
The communication of genetic risk information requires careful consideration of how people perceive and respond to risk. Numerical representations (percentages vs. frequency formats), visual aids, and framing effects all influence how patients understand their risk. Additionally, there's substantial evidence that genetic risk information alone rarely leads to significant behavior change without appropriate support and resources for implementing recommended actions.
Furthermore, the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores varies considerably by disease. For conditions with effective preventive interventions (like certain cancers or cardiovascular disease), early identification of high-risk individuals can have substantial benefits. For other conditions without clear preventive options, the value of risk identification may be more limited or primarily useful for research purposes.
Communication Challenges
Communicating genetic risk information effectively presents several significant challenges for healthcare providers and genetic counselors. These challenges can impact how patients understand and act upon their test results.
Misunderstanding Risk
Individuals may misunderstand a genetic risk report as deterministic rather than probabilistic. In reality, these tests provide likelihood estimates, not certainties. Many patients struggle with the concept that genes are just one factor among many that influence disease development. This misunderstanding can lead to either excessive anxiety or false reassurance, depending on the results.
Professional Interpretation
Tests are not intended to diagnose disease or tell your exact fate. Healthcare providers often need to contextualize genetic risk alongside traditional risk factors such as age, lifestyle, and family history. Without proper professional guidance, patients may make inappropriate healthcare decisions based on incomplete understanding. This requires healthcare providers to be adequately trained in genomics and risk communication.
Relative vs. Absolute Risk
A "3× increased risk" sounds alarming but may represent a change from 1% to 3% absolute risk, which is still low. This distinction between relative and absolute risk is frequently misunderstood, even by medical professionals. Studies show that presenting risk information using natural frequencies (e.g., "3 out of 100 people") rather than percentages or risk ratios can improve comprehension significantly.
Health Literacy
Effective communication requires appropriate health literacy and understanding of probability concepts. Approximately 36% of U.S. adults have limited health literacy, making complex genetic information particularly challenging to convey. This is further complicated when considering diverse cultural backgrounds and language barriers. Developing culturally appropriate and accessible materials is essential for equitable genetic risk communication.
Addressing these communication challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach, involving genetic counselors, primary care providers, specialists, and health communication experts. As genetic testing becomes more widespread, developing effective communication strategies becomes increasingly important for realizing its potential benefits.
Practical Applications of SNP-Based Risk Prediction
Risk Stratification
Despite moderate accuracy, SNP-based risk prediction can be useful in specific clinical scenarios. For example, identifying someone in the top decile of polygenic risk for heart disease might prompt earlier lifestyle interventions, cholesterol checks, or preventative medications. Studies have shown that individuals with high polygenic risk scores for cardiovascular disease can reduce their risk by up to 50% through targeted interventions, even when traditional risk factors appear normal.
Targeted Screening
Polygenic scores have shown significant value in risk stratification across multiple conditions. For example, they can help predict which women without a family history might benefit from earlier or more frequent breast cancer screening. Similarly, patients with elevated polygenic risk for coronary artery disease might need more aggressive prevention strategies, including earlier statin therapy or more frequent monitoring. Recent research has demonstrated that implementing PRS-guided screening protocols could improve early detection rates by 15-20% while optimizing healthcare resource allocation.
Complementary Information
The consensus in the research community is that current PRS are informative but not definitive diagnostic tools. Their discriminative ability in the general population is limited, so they should not be used as standalone diagnostics. Instead, they provide valuable complementary information that can enhance traditional risk assessment methods. When combined with family history, environmental factors, and conventional biomarkers, polygenic risk scores can significantly improve the accuracy of disease prediction models. This integrated approach is becoming increasingly important in personalized medicine frameworks.
Specialized Applications
PRS may be most useful when combined with other indicators or applied in high-risk subgroups where prior risk is already elevated. For instance, in oncology, polygenic risk scores can help refine risk estimates for individuals with known cancer-predisposing mutations. In pharmacogenomics, they can predict medication response and adverse effects, allowing for more personalized drug selection and dosing. Emerging research also suggests potential applications in predicting disease progression trajectories, enabling clinicians to tailor management strategies based on anticipated disease course. These specialized applications represent some of the most promising avenues for clinical implementation of polygenic risk assessment.
Conclusion and Future Directions
Current State
The computational analysis of SNPs for health risk prediction is a cornerstone of personal genomics today. Using extensive genomic datasets, researchers have identified countless SNPs associated with diseases and developed sophisticated pipelines – from variant calling to annotation to scoring – to interpret individual genomes. These technological advances have democratized access to genetic information that was once limited to specialized research settings.
Polygenic risk scores and related models represent a practical way to distill the influence of many genetic variants into an understandable risk metric for consumers. They have enabled services like 23andMe, AncestryDNA, and other direct-to-consumer companies to provide users with personalized insights into conditions like heart disease, diabetes, cancer susceptibility, and neurological disorders.
The integration of SNP-based predictions with electronic health records represents an emerging frontier, potentially allowing healthcare systems to incorporate genetic risk factors into routine preventive care protocols. Some medical centers are already piloting programs that use polygenic risk scores to identify patients who might benefit from enhanced screening or earlier interventions.
Limitations and Future
These predictions come with important caveats: the models have moderate accuracy and are influenced by the scope of current genetic knowledge and study biases. Most genetic studies have overrepresented European populations, limiting the applicability of findings to other ancestry groups. Additionally, many SNP associations represent correlation rather than causation, complicating interpretation of their biological significance.
In practice, SNP-based risk assessments are best viewed as one piece of the puzzle – a tool to guide awareness and preventive action, but not a definitive prophecy of one's health future. Environmental factors, lifestyle choices, and gene-environment interactions often play equally important roles in disease development, yet these complex relationships remain challenging to model comprehensively.
Ongoing research, larger and more diverse genomic studies, and improved algorithms (including machine learning techniques and network-based approaches) are expected to gradually enhance the precision and utility of SNP-based health risk predictions. The integration of multi-omics data – combining genomics with proteomics, metabolomics, and microbiome information – may offer more complete biological insights. For now, individuals and healthcare providers should use these genomic insights as complementary to, rather than replacements for, traditional risk factors and medical evaluations.