ReviewRisk management and healthcare policy2015
The Human Genome Project, and recent advances in personalized genomics.
Review in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- 2023 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on Precision Emergency Medicine: Development of a policy-relevant, patient-centered research agenda.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024Article
- Revolutionizing Cancer Treatment: Harnessing the Power of Biomarkers to Improve Patient Outcomes.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2023Review
- Digital Technologies: Advancing Individualized Treatments through Gene and Cell Therapies, Pharmacogenetics, and Disease Detection and Diagnostics.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Cancer metabolomics: A tool of clinical utility for early diagnosis of gynaecological cancers.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Review
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning-aided drug discovery in central nervous system diseases: State-of-the-arts and future directions.Medicinal research reviews · 2021Review
- Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Article
- Rekindling RNAi Therapy: Materials Design Requirements for In Vivo siRNA Delivery.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2019Review
- Genomics of rare genetic diseases-experiences from India.Human genomics · 2019Review
- Applications of Deep-Learning in Exploiting Large-Scale and Heterogeneous Compound Data in Industrial Pharmaceutical Research.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- Understanding Ethical, Legal and Societal Issues (ELSIs) in Human Biobanking and Genomics for Research and Healthcare in Zimbabwe: The Genomics Inheritance Law Ethics and Society (GILES) initiative.AAS open research · 2019Article
- Building a global atlas of zoonotic viruses.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2018Article
- Lifestyle Medicine: A Brief Review of Its Dramatic Impact on Health and Survival.The Permanente journal · 2018Article
- Leveraging community-based participatory research capacity to recruit Pacific Islanders into a genetics study.Journal of community genetics · 2017Article
- Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.BMC medical genomics · 2016Article
- Innovative Interventional and Imaging Registries: Precision Medicine in Cerebrovascular Disorders.Interventional neurology · 2015Review
- Current directions in behavioral medicine research on genetic testing for disease susceptibility: introduction to the special section.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2015Article
- Genomic medicine in gastroenterology: A new approach or a new specialty?World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The language of "personalized medicine" and "personal genomics" has now entered the common lexicon. The idea of personalized medicine is the integration of genomic risk assessment alongside other clinical investigations. Consistent with this approach, testing is delivered by health care professionals who are not medical geneticists, and where results represent risks, as opposed to clinical diagnosis of disease, to be interpreted alongside the entirety of a patient's health and medical data. In this review we consider the evidence concerning the application of such personalized genomics within the context of population screening, and potential implications that arise from this. We highlight two general approaches which illustrate potential uses of genomic information in screening. The first is a narrowly targeted approach in which genetic profiling is linked with standard population-based screening for diseases; the second is a broader targeting of variants associated with multiple single gene disorders, performed opportunistically on patients being investigated for unrelated conditions. In doing so we consider the organization and evaluation of tests and services, the challenge of interpretation with less targeted testing, professional confidence, barriers in practice, and education needs. We conclude by discussing several issues pertinent to health policy, namely: avoiding the conflation of genetics with biological determinism, resisting the "technological imperative", due consideration of the organization of screening services, the need for professional education, as well as informed decision making and public understanding.
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.