ArticlePersonalized medicine2011
Comparing different scientific approaches to personalized medicine: research ethics and privacy protection.
Article in Personalized medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovations in Health Care-A Conceptual Framework.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Applying systems biology to biomedical research and health care: a précising definition of systems medicine.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Implementation of Electronic Consent at a Biobank: An Opportunity for Precision Medicine Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2016Article
- Secondary use of clinical data: the Vanderbilt approach.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2014Article
- Cohort profile: Greifswald approach to individualized medicine (GANI_MED).Journal of translational medicine · 2014Article
- Implications of the incidentalome for clinical pharmacogenomics.Pharmacogenomics · 2013Article
- Psychosocial consequences and severity of disclosed incidental findings from whole-body MRI in a general population study.European radiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this article, two different scientific approaches to personalized medicine are compared. Biorepository at Vanderbilt University (BioVU) is a genomic biorepository at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, TN, USA. Genetic biosamples are collected from leftover clinical blood samples; medical information is derived from an electronic medical records. Greifswald Approach to Individualized Medicine is a research resource at the University of Greifswald, Germany, comprised of clinical records combined with biosamples collected for research. We demonstrate that although both approaches are based on the collection of clinical data and biosamples, different legal milieus present in the USA and Germany as well as slight differences in scientific goals have led to different 'ethical designs'. While BioVU can successfully operate with an 'opt-out' mechanism, an informed consent-based 'opt-in' model is indispensable to allow GANI_MED to reach its scientific goals.
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.