ReviewTrends in genetics : TIG2015
Genetic research on biospecimens poses minimal risk.
Review in Trends in genetics : TIG, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adults with Intellectual Disability and Consent to Precision Medicine Research: Using Supported Decision-Making to Facilitate First-Person Consent.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2026Article
- Contextual Exceptionalism After Death: An Information Ethics Approach to Post-Mortem Privacy in Health Data Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- The Ethics of Mandatory Retention of Clinical Biospecimens for Research.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.Personalized medicine · 2018Article
- Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic research on human biospecimens is increasingly common. However, debate continues over the level of risk that this research poses to sample donors. Some argue that genetic research on biospecimens poses minimal risk; others argue that it poses greater than minimal risk and therefore needs additional requirements and limitations. This debate raises concern that some donors are not receiving appropriate protection or, conversely, that valuable research is being subject to unnecessary requirements and limitations. The present paper attempts to resolve this debate using the widely-endorsed 'risks of daily life' standard. The three extant versions of this standard all suggest that, with proper measures in place to protect confidentiality, most genetic research on human biospecimens poses minimal risk to donors.
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.