RESEARCH SOFTWARE / PROTOTYPENot a medical device. It does not diagnose, and it never converts a polygenic score into absolute risk.

Methodology

How PRSGuard works

Orchestration gathers evidence and calls tools. Deterministic code alone decides what claims are allowed. Orchestration is performed by an LLM agent when one drives PRSGuard, and otherwise by the deterministic scripted PRSGuard CLI orchestrator (as in every demo result here); both are bound by the same rules. PRSGuard starts from the trait, not from the genome: candidate scores are selected and frozen before any personal genotype is scored, and each one must then pass an evidence gate before anything is interpreted.

Architecture

Three lanes, read top to bottom. Every result page shows the same steps in its orchestration trace.

ORCHESTRATIONDETERMINISTIC DECISIONCONTEXT ONLY — never used by the applicability gate

What orchestration (LLM agent or scripted CLI) may and may not do

Orchestration may

  • Resolve the trait text to an ontology term and state the scope it used
  • Search the PGS Catalog and collect score, publication and evaluation metadata
  • Plan the run and call the deterministic tools in order
  • Attach clearly labelled context (equity-scorer, equity-lit-auditor) to the report
  • Explain in plain language what was released, the reason codes, and what would change the result

Orchestration may not

  • Add, drop or reorder candidates after the freeze, or pick a different primary score
  • Override, relax or re-interpret any gate rule or threshold
  • Compute or show a percentile, standardized score or risk that the gate withheld
  • Convert a polygenic score into absolute risk or a diagnosis
  • Use literature equity or FST context as an input to any gate decision
  • Describe genetic reference placement as ethnicity, race or identity
  • Send genotype data anywhere other than the machine it was read on

Three outcomes per score

No percentile is released unless the evidence gate supports it. Absolute risk is never provided.

Gate statusRaw scoreStandardized scorePercentileAbsolute riskTypical cause
SUPPORTEDreleasedreleasedreleased, with intervalsneverScoreable, stably placed, and with evidence of association (95% CI above the null) in an evaluation of the person's reference group. A research reportability state: not evidence of clinically useful discrimination or calibration, and not a clinical recommendation.
RAW ONLYreleasedwithheldwithheldneverNo stable placement, or no relevant evaluation for the person's reference group.
ABSTAINwithheldwithheldwithheldneverThe computable score does not represent the published one, or inputs are invalid.

The applicability gate

prs-applicability-gate v2.2.1, calibration 2026.09.26-3. Every rule is evaluated for each candidate: ABSTAIN if any ABSTAIN rule failed, else RAW_ONLY if any RAW_ONLY rule failed, else SUPPORTED.

RuleNameQuestion
G1INPUT_VALIDIs the gate input well-formed and unmodified?
G2SCORE_FORMATIs the scoring file a plain additive score on a log scale?
G3BUILDIs the genotype file's genome build established (never assumed)?
G4ALLELESAre located variants' alleles consistent with the scoring file?
G5SCOREABILITYDoes the computable score represent the published score (r >= r_min)?
G6SEX_SCOREIs a sex-specific score applied to a person of that sex?
G7METADATAIs the PGS Catalog record resolved and internally consistent?
G8PLACEMENTIs the person placed stably inside one reference group?
G9EVALUATIONIs there evidence of association (95% CI above the null) in an evaluation of the person's group? (Association only: not clinically useful discrimination or calibration.)
G10SEX_EVALUATIONDo the informative evaluations include the person's sex?
G11REFERENCE_DISTRIBUTIONIs there a reference distribution on the matched variants?
G12REFERENCE_SENSITIVITYIs the percentile robust to the reference population chosen?

The router: eligibility and pre-ranking

Applied to PGS Catalog metadata only. The person's genotype is never an input.

Eligibility

  • E1 trait: mapped (PGS Catalog trait_efo) to the resolved term or an in-scope child term.
  • E2 phenotype: trait_reported names the whole outcome (the term's label, a Catalog synonym of an in-scope term, or the query); parenthetical qualifiers are allowed only when they are a sex qualifier, a synonym or abbreviation of the term, or a phenotype code (PheCode/ICD); subtype, age-of-onset or carrier-status scores answer a different question.
  • E3 sex: sex-specific scores are excluded when the person's sex is given and differs.
  • E4 score model: additive with log-scale weights and no interaction terms (what the scorer computes).
  • E5 file: a PGS Catalog harmonised scoring file exists for the requested genome build (any build if unknown).
  • E6 evaluated: at least one evaluation (publication, sample set) unit in the Catalog.
  • E7 metadata: the Catalog record resolves and passes the consistency audit.
  • E8 engineering: variants_number <= max_variants when set (the prsguard CLI sets 10,000 by default, the size the shipped 1000 Genomes reference panel supports; --max-variants 0 disables it). A runtime constraint, not a scientific criterion.

Pre-ranking

  1. R1 more distinct ancestry groups (single-ancestry evaluation units; NR/MAE/MAO/OTH not counted) with at least one reported performance metric - breadth of validation first;
  2. R2 more evaluation units with a reported performance metric;
  3. R3 larger total evaluation sample size (sum over units);
  4. R4 earlier Catalog release (longer track record); R5 PGS id. The person's genotype is never an input.

Privacy model

  • This website is a static export. It loads only its own files (demo results, map geometry).
  • Uploads are analysed only by a PRSGuard server running on your own machine (prsguard serve, bound to 127.0.0.1). This website never receives genomic data.
  • The local server deletes the uploaded file after responding; it sends only trait text and PGS IDs to the PGS Catalog.
  • No analytics, cookies or third-party scripts.

Back to the analysis