Co-design for Trustworthy AI: An Interpretable and Explainable Tool for Type 2 Diabetes Prediction Using Genomic Polygenic Risk Scores
The polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as an important methodology for quantifying genetic predisposition to complex traits and clinical disease. Significant progress has been made in applying PRS to conditions such as obesity, cancer, and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Studies have demonstrated that PRS can effectively identify individuals at high risk, thereby enabling early screening, personalized treatment, and targeted interventions for diseases with a genetic predisposition. One current lim
Record details
Published: 9 April 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Healthcare · Transparency · Biotech
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
An explainable hypothesis-driven approach to Drug-Induced Liver Injury with HADES
arXiv · 4 May 2026
Explainable Multi-Task Retinal Imaging Reveals Microvascular Signals for Systemic Risk Stratification in Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot Study
arXiv · 24 May 2026
Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI Extension
OpenAlex · 9 September 2020
Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extension
OpenAlex · 9 September 2020
Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension
OpenAlex · 9 September 2020
Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI Extension
OpenAlex · 9 September 2020
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (9 April 2026), “Co-design for Trustworthy AI: An Interpretable and Explainable Tool for Type 2 Diabetes Prediction Using Genomic Polygenic Risk Scores,” evidence record 6127, https://ethics.ai/record/6127 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.