Genetic Test False Positives and Clinical Confirmation
Why a genetic result from a consumer test or raw data file can be wrong, what studies found about false positives for rare variants, and why clinical confirmation matters before any decision.
Content last updated . This page has not been medically reviewed.
Why this page exists
A genetic result can look precise and still be wrong. This page explains how false positives happen, what studies measured, and why a clinical laboratory should confirm any surprising result before anyone acts on it. It is information only and not medical advice. It does not tell anyone to change a medicine or a screening plan.Common versus rare variants
Many consumer tests read DNA with a "SNP chip," which checks a fixed list of known spots. A large UK study compared SNP-chip results with sequencing in 49,908 UK Biobank participants. For 108,574 common variants, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were all above 99%. [1] But the chance that a positive result is real fell sharply as variants became rarer. For very rare variants, only 16% of 4,757 heterozygous genotypes from the chips were confirmed by sequencing. [1] Positive predictive value means the share of positive results that are true.For rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2, the study reported sensitivity of 34.6%, specificity of 98.3% and positive predictive value of 4.2%. [1] In a small group of 21 people who bought consumer tests and shared their data, 20 had at least one false-positive rare pathogenic variant. [1]
Raw data and third-party reports
Some companies give customers a raw data file. A clinical laboratory reviewed 49 samples sent for confirmation after earlier results appeared in direct-to-consumer raw data. It found that 40% of the variants reported in those files were false positives. [2] Some variants labeled "increased risk" in raw data or by a third-party service were classified as benign by several clinical laboratories and are common in public population databases. [2] See raw genetic data interpretation.What "confirmation" means
Confirmation means that a clinical laboratory repeats the finding on a new sample with a method and classification process suited to clinical use, interpreted by a clinician. This is different from running the same raw file through another website. Variant labels can differ between labs, as covered in variant interpretation and uncertain significance.How to evaluate a result
- Ask whether the result is a common variant or a very rare one, since rare results are more likely to be wrong.
- Ask who performed the test, whether it was a clinical laboratory, and who interpreted it.
- Treat a surprising "high risk" result as a question for a clinician or genetic counselor, not as a diagnosis.
- A negative result on a consumer test does not rule out risk either. The BRCA sensitivity above shows a chip can miss most true carriers. [1]
Frequently asked questions
Can a consumer genetic test give a false positive?
Yes. In one laboratory review, 40% of variants reported in direct-to-consumer raw data were false positives. [2] In a UK study, only 16% of very rare heterozygous chip genotypes were confirmed by sequencing. [1]
Are common results also unreliable?
Much less so. For 108,574 common variants, chip accuracy measures were all above 99%. [1]
What should I do with a worrying result?
Take it to a clinician or genetic counselor, and expect confirmatory testing in a clinical laboratory where appropriate. [3] This site cannot say what any individual result means.
Does a negative consumer result mean I am safe?
No. For BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants the chips had sensitivity of 34.6% in the UK Biobank comparison. [1]
More details: evidence, limits and cautions
The details behind this page: cautions, limits of the evidence and where sources disagree. Open any note to read it.
How to read the evidence labels
Labels used on this page: established (what studies measured), mixed (how often errors occur) and marketing claim (any promise of "lab-grade" accuracy). The full set is explained in how we label evidence.
What regulators say
Safety note
References
- Weedon MN, et al. Use of SNP chips to detect rare pathogenic variants: retrospective, population based diagnostic evaluation. BMJ. 2021. PMID 33589468. Read 2026-10-22.
- Tandy-Connor S, et al. False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care. Genet Med. 2018. PMID 29565420. Read 2026-10-22.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Direct-to-Consumer Tests. Read 2026-10-22.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Laboratory Developed Tests. Read 2026-10-22.