Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27209083›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Clinical decision-making and secondary findings in systems medicine.

T Fischer, K B Brothers, P Erdmann, M Langanke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Data-driven decision making in patient management: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Data-driven clinical decision processes: it's time.Journal of translational medicine · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Ethics and Epistemology in Big Data Research.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Systems Medicine-Complexity Within, Simplicity Without.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

T FischerUniversity Medicine Greifswald, Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, Ellernholzstraße 1-2, 17487, Greifswald, Germany. tobias.fischer@uni-greifswald.de.
K B BrothersKosair Charities Pediatric Clinical Research Unit, University of Louisville, School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
P ErdmannFaculty of Theology, Greifswald University, Greifswald, Germany.
M LangankeUniversity Medicine Greifswald, Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, Ellernholzstraße 1-2, 17487, Greifswald, Germany.
Universitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversity of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Data CollectionEthics, MedicalIncidental FindingsSystems BiologyTranslational Research, BiomedicalAlgorithmsClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingHumansKnowledgeMedical InformaticsPhysician-Patient RelationsPrecision MedicinePrognosisStatistics as TopicSystems AnalysisBig dataClinical decision-makingElectronic health recordsEpistemologyScoring systemsSecondary findingsSystems medicineTranslation

Identifiers

PMID27209083
PMCPMC4875611
OpenAlexW2397490313

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.