ArticleGenome medicine2015
Explaining, not just predicting, drives interest in personal genomics.
Article in Genome medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Enhancing health outcomes through genetic-based personalized nutrition: investigating the effects of dietary behavior change.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Views and experiences regarding workplace genetic testing: findings from a national survey of U.S. employees.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Biomarker-Based Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: Implementation Considerations.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- An Association between Diet andInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Responsible use of polygenic risk scores in the clinic: potential benefits, risks and gaps.Nature medicine · 2021Review
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for factor V Leiden and prothrombin 20210G>A: the consumer experience.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Implementation of personalized medicine in Central-Eastern Europe: pitfalls and potentials based on citizen's attitude.The EPMA journal · 2018Article
- Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Consumer Perspectives on Access to Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience.The Milbank quarterly · 2017Article
- Diet and exercise changes following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.BMC medical genomics · 2017Article
- Evolving health care through personal genomics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2017Review
- Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Article
- Ancestry Testing and the Practice of Genetic Counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Review
- Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: User Motivations, Decision Making, and Perceived Utility of Results.Public health genomics · 2017Article
- Adopting genetics: motivations and outcomes of personal genomic testing in adult adoptees.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016Article
- Genomic sequencing in clinical practice: applications, challenges, and opportunities.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a widespread assumption that risk prediction is the major driver of customer interest in personal genomic testing (PGT). However, some customers may also be motivated by finding out whether their existing diseases have a genetic etiology. We evaluated the impact of an existing medical diagnosis on customer interest in condition-specific results from PGT.
methodsUsing a prospective online survey of PGT customers, we measured customer interest prior to receiving PGT results for 11 health conditions, and examined the association between interest and personal medical history of these conditions using logistic regression.
resultsWe analyzed data from 1,538 PGT customers, mean age 48.7 years, 61 % women, 90 % White, and 47 % college educated. The proportion of customers who were 'very interested' in condition-specific PGT varied considerably, from 28 % for ulcerative colitis to 68% for heart disease. After adjusting for demographic and personal characteristics including family history, having a diagnosis of the condition itself was significantly associated with interest in genetic testing for risk of that condition, with odds ratios ranging from 2.07 (95 % CI 1.28-3.37) for diabetes to 19.99 (95 % CI 4.57-87.35) for multiple sclerosis.
conclusionsPGT customers are particularly interested in genetic markers for their existing medical conditions, suggesting that the value of genetic testing is not only predictive, but also explanatory.
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.