Distributing the future: The weak justifications for keeping human genomic databases secret and the challenges and opportunities in reverse engineering them.

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.

1. Society and personal genome data.Human molecular genetics · 2018
   Review
2. Sources of discordance among germ-line variant classifications in ClinVar.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017
   Article
3. Consistency ofJCO precision oncology · 2017
   Article
4. DATA SHARING AND REPRODUCIBLE CLINICAL GENETIC TESTING: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2017
   Article
5. Preventive Genomic Sequencing in the General Population: Do PGS Fly?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2015
   Article

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.