Herasight's 2025 CogPGT announcement reports new self-reported cognitive-ability polygenic-score accuracy figures, distinct from Heliospect's 2024 claims

herasightpolygenic-embryo-selectionuk-biobankai-genomicsquantitative-claim

Herasight's October 2025 announcement of "CogPGT 1.0," published under the company's name with no individual byline, states: "Herasight's CogPGT is able to detect on average an 8.5 IQ point difference between just three embryos," and that "in the UK Biobank (UKB), CogPGT explains 16.4% of the variation in fluid intelligence among unrelated individuals." The post links to "our peer-reviewed version" of the underlying validation paper (DOI 10.65550/001c.158459). That paper — Interpreting Polygenic Prediction of Cognitive Ability: Evidence for Direct, Reliable, and Portable Genetic Effects, in Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities, dated 2026-04-06 — is where the shared personnel actually appear: its author list is "Tobias Wolfram, Spencer Moore, Jeremiah H. Li, Jonathan Anomaly, Ivan Davidson, Michael Christensen," several of them the same people named in the 2024 Heliospect investigation (see entity-jonathan-anomaly).

The two figures do not have the same standing. The paper reports "an R2 of 16.4% for fluid intelligence/VNR in UKB," matching the announcement's variance figure. It does not report the "8.5 IQ point difference between just three embryos" figure — the consumer-facing number is the one with no paper behind it.

These are new, larger figures than the "six IQ points" Heliospect was reported claiming in 2024 (claim-heliospect-genomics-used-ai-polygenic-scoring-to-rank-embryos-by-iq), but they describe a different, later product from a related company, self-reported by that company — not an independent check on the original number, and not yet corroborated by a source confirmed to be genuinely external to Herasight. The claim here is scoped narrowly to "Herasight publicly reported these figures," which a direct, Tier 1 read of the company's own announcement fully supports; it is not a claim that the figures themselves have been independently validated.