ArticleAJOB primary research2012
What are our AIMs? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Use of Ancestry Estimation in Disease Research.
Article in AJOB primary research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues.Genome medicine · 2021Article
- The clinical imperative for inclusivity: Race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) in genomics.Human mutation · 2018Article
- Health and genetic ancestry testing: time to bridge the gap.BMC medical genomics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAncestry estimation serves as a tool to identify genetic contributions to disease but may contribute to racial discrimination and stigmatization. We sought to understand user perspectives on the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation to inform research practice and contribute to debates about the use of race and ancestry in genetics.
methodsKey informant interviews with 22 scientists were conducted to examine scientists' understandings of the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation.
resultsThree main perspectives were observed among key informant scientists who use ancestry estimation in genetic epidemiology research. Population geneticists self identified as educators who controlled the meaning and application of ancestry estimation in research. Clinician-researchers were optimistic about the application of ancestry estimation to individualized risk assessment and personalized medicine. Epidemiologists remained ambivalent toward ancestry estimation and suggested a continued role for race in their research.
conclusionsWe observed an imbalance of control over the meaning and application of ancestry estimation among disciplines that may result in unwarranted or premature translation of ancestry estimation into medicine and public health. Differences in disciplinary perspectives need to be addressed if translational benefits of genetic ancestry estimation are to be realized.
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.