Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26653536›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2015

Self-tracking the microbiome: where do we go from here?

Carine Gimbert, François-Joseph Lapointe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. How to distinguish medicalization from over-medicalization?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Carine GimbertDépartement de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, CP. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada. carine.gimbert@gmail.com.
François-Joseph LapointeDépartement de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, CP. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada. francois-joseph.lapointe@umontreal.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quantified self community brings together enthusiasts who are using technological devices to monitor their health and social media to share their personal data with others online. In light of the growing popularity of this movement, self-trackers are challenging the health-care system by raising important questions about data ownership and risk-taking. As we enter a new era of consumer genomics, a significant number of quantified self (QS) individuals are now interested in the monitoring of their microbiome and performing personal interventions. In this paper, we discuss the scientific validity of experiments involving serial observations of a single individual as opposed to randomized clinical trials. We look at self-tracking from an ethical standpoint by questioning the risks and assessing the potential benefits for personalized medicine in general and for microbiome research in particular.

Indexed as

AutoexperimentationDiagnostic Self EvaluationMicrobiotaActivities of Daily LivingClinical Trials as TopicGenomicsHumansLife StylePrecision MedicineRisk-TakingSelf Care

Identifiers

PMID26653536
PMCPMC4676868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.