ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify potential clinical utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) and exposomic risk scores (ERS) for psychosis and suicide attempt in youth and assess the ethical implications of these tools. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a narrative literature review of emerging findings on PRS and ERS for suicide and psychosis as well as a literature review on the ethics of PRS. We discuss the ethical implications of the emerging findings for the clinical potential of PRS and ERS. RESULTS: Emerging evidence suggests that PRS and ERS may offer clinical utility in the relatively near future but that this utility will be limited to specific, narrow clinical questions, in contrast to the suggestion that population-level screening will have sweeping impact. Combining PRS and ERS might optimize prediction. This clinical utility would change the risk-benefit balance of PRS, and further empirical assessment of proposed risks would be necessary. Some concerns for PRS, such as those about counseling, privacy, and inequities, apply to ERS. ERS raise distinct ethical challenges as well, including some that involve informed consent and direct-to-consumer advertising. Both raise questions about the ethics of machine-learning/artificial intelligence approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive analytics using PRS and ERS may soon play a role in youth mental health settings. Our findings help educate clinicians about potential capabilities, limitations, and ethical implications of these tools. We suggest that a broader discussion with the public is needed to avoid overenthusiasm and determine regulations and guidelines for use of predictive scores.