ArticleBMC medical genomics2010
Human difference in the genomic era: Facilitating a socially responsible dialogue.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Mini-Review: Genetic Literacy and Engagement With Genetic Testing for Autism Spectrum Disorder.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say.Genes & nutrition · 2014Article
- Advancing genomic research and reducing health disparities: what can nurse scholars do?Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2013Article
- Variability in the efficacy of psychopharmaceuticals: contributions from pharmacogenomics, ethnopsychopharmacology, and psychological and psychiatric anthropologies.Culture, medicine and psychiatry · 2012Review
- Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: lessons from the human genome diversity panel.BMC medical ethics · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study of human genetic variation has been advanced by research such as genome-wide association studies, which aim to identify variants associated with common, complex diseases and traits. Significant strides have already been made in gleaning information on susceptibility, treatment, and prevention of a number of disorders. However, as genetic researchers continue to uncover underlying differences between individuals, there is growing concern that observed population-level differences will be inappropriately generalized as inherent to particular racial or ethnic groups and potentially perpetuate negative stereotypes. DISCUSSION: We caution that imprecision of language when conveying research conclusions, compounded by the potential distortion of findings by the media, can lead to the stigmatization of racial and ethnic groups. SUMMARY: It is essential that the scientific community and with those reporting and disseminating research findings continue to foster a socially responsible dialogue about genetic variation and human difference.
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.