ArticleBMC medical ethics2016
Clinical decision-making and secondary findings in systems medicine.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data-driven decision making in patient management: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Just Semantics? How Diagnostic Criteria Influence Physician-Patient Narratives in Alzheimer's Disease.Neuro-degenerative diseases · 2026Article
- The Ethics of Leveraging Routinely Collected Patient Data for AI Development: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A Vision of Future Healthcare: Potential Opportunities and Risks of Systems Medicine from a Citizen and Patient Perspective-Results of a Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Identifying Ethical Considerations for Machine Learning Healthcare Applications.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2020Article
- Advancing Biomarker Development Through Convergent Engagement: Summary Report of the 2nd International Danube Symposium on Biomarker Development, Molecular Imaging and Applied Diagnostics; March 14-16, 2018; Vienna, Austria.Molecular imaging and biology · 2020Article
- Scoring systems in the critically ill: uses, cautions, and future directions.BJA education · 2019Review
- Data-driven clinical decision processes: it's time.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Too much medicine? Scientific and ethical issues from a comparison between two conflicting paradigms.BMC public health · 2019Article
- New perspectives: systems medicine in cardiovascular disease.BMC systems biology · 2018Article
- Systems healthcare: a holistic paradigm for tomorrow.BMC systems biology · 2017Review
- Ethics and Epistemology in Big Data Research.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Article
- Applying systems biology to biomedical research and health care: a précising definition of systems medicine.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Systems Medicine-Complexity Within, Simplicity Without.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2017Article
- Introduction to the article collection 'Translation in healthcare: ethical, legal, and social implications'.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystems medicine is the name for an assemblage of scientific strategies and practices that include bioinformatics approaches to human biology (especially systems biology); "big data" statistical analysis; and medical informatics tools. Whereas personalized and precision medicine involve similar analytical methods applied to genomic and medical record data, systems medicine draws on these as well as other sources of data. Given this distinction, the clinical translation of systems medicine poses a number of important ethical and epistemological challenges for researchers working to generate systems medicine knowledge and clinicians working to apply it. DISCUSSION: This article focuses on three key challenges: First, we will discuss the conflicts in decision-making that can arise when healthcare providers committed to principles of experimental medicine or evidence-based medicine encounter individualized recommendations derived from computer algorithms. We will explore in particular whether controlled experiments, such as comparative effectiveness trials, should mediate the translation of systems medicine, or if instead individualized findings generated through "big data" approaches can be applied directly in clinical decision-making. Second, we will examine the case of the Riyadh Intensive Care Program Mortality Prediction Algorithm, pejoratively referred to as the "death computer," to demonstrate the ethical challenges that can arise when big-data-driven scoring systems are applied in clinical contexts. We argue that the uncritical use of predictive clinical algorithms, including those envisioned for systems medicine, challenge basic understandings of the doctor-patient relationship. Third, we will build on the recent discourse on secondary findings in genomics and imaging to draw attention to the important implications of secondary findings derived from the joint analysis of data from diverse sources, including data recorded by patients in an attempt to realize their "quantified self." This paper examines possible ethical challenges that are likely to be raised as systems medicine to be translated into clinical medicine. These include the epistemological challenges for clinical decision-making, the use of scoring systems optimized by big data techniques and the risk that incidental and secondary findings will significantly increase. While some ethical implications remain still hypothetical we should use the opportunity to prospectively identify challenges to avoid making foreseeable mistakes when systems medicine inevitably arrives in routine care.
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.