Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27375922›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical research & bioethics2015

Addressing Benefits, Risks and Consent in Next Generation Sequencing Studies.

R Meller

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical research & bioethics, 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2019
    Article
  4. Ethical Considerations in Microbial Therapeutic Clinical Trials.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2017
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

R MellerTranslational Stroke Program, Neuroscience Institute, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA.
Morehouse School of Medicine · US

Funding

Research Desogn and Biostatistics CoreU54MD007588 · NIMHD · MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MAYBERRY, ROBERT M · 2012 to 2018
$24.8M
Rapid ischemic tolerance: Synaptic re-organization and reduced excitotoxicityR01NS059588 · NINDS · MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MELLER, ROBERT · 2008 to 2012
$1.6M
NIMHD NIH HHS U54 MD007588NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS059588
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sequencing of the human genome and technological advances in DNA sequencing have led to a revolution with respect to DNA sequencing and its potential to diagnose genetic disorders. However, requests for open access to genomic data must be balanced against the guiding principles of the Common Rule for human subject research. Unfortunately, the risks to patients involved in genomic studies are still evolving and as such may not be clear to learned and well-intentioned scientists. Central to this issue are the strategies that enable human participants in such studies to remain anonymous, or de-identified. The wealth of genomic data on the Internet in genomic data repositories and other databases has enabled de-identified data to be broken and research subjects to be identified. The security of de-identification neglects the fact that DNA itself is an identifying element. Therefore, it is questionable whether data security standards can ever truly protect the identity of a patient, under the current conditions or in the future. As Big Data methodologies advance, additional sources of data may enable the re-identification of patients enrolled in next-generation sequencing (NGS) studies. As such, it is time to re-evaluate the risks of sharing genomic data and establish new guidelines for good practices. In this commentary, I address the challenges facing federally funded investigators who need to strike a balance between compliance with federal (US) rules for human subjects and the recent requirement for open access/sharing of data from National Institute for Health (NIH)-funded studies involving human subjects.

Indexed as

ConsentGeneration sequencingHuman subject research

Identifiers

PMID27375922
PMCPMC4930149
OpenAlexW2471032371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.