ArticleGenetic testing2008
Explaining behavior change after genetic testing: the problem of collinearity between test results and risk estimates.
Article in Genetic testing, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical implications of APOE genotyping for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) risk estimation: a review of the literature.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2019Pooled it
- Psychological, behavioral and social effects of disclosing Alzheimer's disease biomarkers to research participants: a systematic review.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2016Pooled it
- The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Pooled it
- Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Effect of communicating DNA based risk assessments for Crohn's disease on smoking cessation: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Trial
- Communicating the risk of dementia: a scoping review.BMJ neurology open · 2025Article
- Does personalised nutrition advice based on apolipoprotein E and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase genotype affect dietary behaviour?Nutrition and health · 2022Article
- Genetic Sample Provision Among National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Participants.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2019Article
- The impact ofGenes & nutrition · 2016Article
- Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition.Genes & nutrition · 2013Article
- The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2010Article
- Considerations for the impact of personal genome information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and genomics professionals.Journal of genetic counseling · 2010Article
- Family history, perceived risk, and perceived threat of Alzheimer's disease among Latino residents of northern Manhattan.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper explores whether and how the behavioral impact of genotype disclosure can be disentangled from the impact of numerical risk estimates generated by genetic tests. Secondary data analyses are presented from a randomized controlled trial of 162 first-degree relatives of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Each participant received a lifetime risk estimate of AD. Control group estimates were based on age, gender, family history, and assumed epsilon4-negative apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype; intervention group estimates were based upon the first three variables plus true APOE genotype, which was also disclosed. AD-specific self-reported behavior change (diet, exercise, and medication use) was assessed at 12 months. Behavior change was significantly more likely with increasing risk estimates, and also more likely, but not significantly so, in epsilon4-positive intervention group participants (53% changed behavior) than in control group participants (31%). Intervention group participants receiving epsilon4-negative genotype feedback (24% changed behavior) and control group participants had similar rates of behavior change and risk estimates, the latter allowing assessment of the independent effects of genotype disclosure. However, collinearity between risk estimates and epsilon4-positive genotypes, which engender high-risk estimates, prevented assessment of the independent effect of the disclosure of an epsilon4 genotype. Novel study designs are proposed to determine whether genotype disclosure has an impact upon behavior beyond that of numerical risk estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.