ReviewThe Journal of physiology2014
Chasing Mendel: five questions for personalized medicine.
Review in The Journal of physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geneticization in the genomic era: a scoping review of ethical, clinical, and sociocultural transformations.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Review
- The Spiral Model of Evolution: Stable Life Forms of Organisms and Unstable Life Forms of Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Personalization of medical treatments in oncology: time for rethinking the disease concept to improve individual outcomes.The EPMA journal · 2021Review
- A Postgenomic Perspective on Molecular Cytogenetics.Current genomics · 2018Article
- Evolution viewed from physics, physiology and medicine.Interface focus · 2017Review
- Treating the host response to emerging virus diseases: lessons learned from sepsis, pneumonia, influenza and Ebola.Annals of translational medicine · 2016Review
- The Significance of an Enhanced Concept of the Organism for Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2016Review
- When Quality Beats Quantity: Decision Theory, Drug Discovery, and the Reproducibility Crisis.PloS one · 2016Article
- Evidence of altered autonomic cardiac regulation in breast cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2015Observational
- Genome-wide significant loci: how important are they? Systems genetics to understand heritability of coronary artery disease and other common complex disorders.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2015Review
- The childhood obesity epidemic as a result of nongenetic evolution: the maternal resources hypothesis.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2015Article
- Evolution evolves: physiology returns to centre stage.The Journal of physiology · 2014Article
- Cardiovascular precision medicine: Bad news from the front?Porto biomedical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ideas about personalized medicine are underpinned in part by evolutionary biology's Modern Synthesis. In this essay we link personalized medicine to the efforts of the early statistical investigators who quantified the heritability of human phenotype and then attempted to reconcile their observations with Mendelian genetics. As information about the heritability of common diseases was obtained, similar efforts were directed at understanding the genetic basis of disease phenotypes. These ideas were part of the rationale driving the Human Genome Project and subsequently the personalized medicine movement. In this context, we discuss: (1) the current state of the genotype-phenotype relationship in humans, (2) the common-disease-common-variant hypothesis, (3) the current ability of 'omic' information to inform clinical decision making, (4) emerging ideas about the therapeutic insight available from rare genetic variants, and (5) the social and behavioural barriers to the wider potential success of personalized medicine. There are significant gaps in knowledge as well as conceptual, intellectual, and philosophical limitations in each of these five areas. We then provide specific recommendations to mitigate these limitations and close by asking if it is time for the biomedical research community to 'stop chasing Mendel?'
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.