ReviewApplied & translational genomics2014
Genomic knowledge sharing: A review of the ethical and legal issues.
Review in Applied & translational genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular basis of precision nutrition: Food components, microbiome-derived metabolites, and multi-omics modeling.Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2026Review
- SVAT: Secure outsourcing of variant annotation and genotype aggregation.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Personalized workflows in reconstructive dentistry-current possibilities and future opportunities.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Review
- Apropos Data Sharing: Abandon the Distrust and Embrace the Opportunity.DNA and cell biology · 2022Article
- Optimizing Precision Medicine for Public Health.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- User Perspectives of a Web-Based Data-Sharing Platform (Open Humans) on Ethical Oversight in Participant-Led Research: Protocol for a Quantitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Society and personal genome data.Human molecular genetics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The importance of genomic information for care of individual patients and for the development of knowledge about treatment efficacy is becoming increasingly apparent. This information is probabilistic and involves the use of large data sets to increase the likelihood of detecting low frequency events. Duties and rights of patients with respect to this information have been much discussed, including informed consent to the use of individual information, privacy and confidentiality, rights to know or not to know, and individual ownership of information about themselves. But this is only one side of the information equation. On the other side of the equation are duties of information holders: malpractice and duties to warn, responsibilities of data stewardship, intellectual property and ownership, reciprocity, and justice. This article argues that if we take duties of patients to share information seriously, we must also consider duties on the part of information holders about how they protect and use information.
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.