ArticleBMC medical genomics2017
Health and genetic ancestry testing: time to bridge the gap.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical Priorities Among Commercial Genomics Professionals : Survey Evidence Highlighting Diversity, Fragmented Privacy Law, and Human Rights Risks as Central Participant Concerns.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Adoptees' views and experiences of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing: an exploratory interview study from the UK.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Pilot Screening of Cell-Free mtDNA in NIPT: Quality Control, Variant Calling, and Haplogroup Determination.Genes · 2021Article
- Use of SNP chips to detect rare pathogenic variants: retrospective, population based diagnostic evaluation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Impacts of personal DNA ancestry testing.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Genetic testing, insurance discrimination and medical research: what the United States can learn from peer countries.Nature medicine · 2019Review
- Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing's Red Herring: "Genetic Ancestry" and Personalized Medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- The clinical imperative for inclusivity: Race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) in genomics.Human mutation · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is becoming increasingly difficult to keep information about genetic ancestry separate from information about health, and consumers of genetic ancestry tests are becoming more aware of the potential health risks associated with particular ancestral lineages. Because some of the proposed associations have received little attention from oversight agencies and professional genetic associations, scientific developments are currently outpacing governance regimes for consumer genetic testing. MAIN TEXT: We highlight the recent and unremarked upon emergence of biomedical studies linking markers of genetic ancestry to disease risks, and show that this body of scientific research is becoming part of public discourse connecting ancestry and health. For instance, data on genome-wide ancestry informative markers are being used to assess health risks, and we document over 100 biomedical research articles that propose associations between mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome markers of genetic ancestry and a wide variety of disease risks. Taking as an example an association between coronary heart disease and British men belonging to Y chromosome haplogroup I, we show how this science was translated into mainstream and online media, and how it circulates among consumers of genetic tests for ancestry. We find wide variations in how the science is interpreted, which suggests the potential for confusion or misunderstanding.
conclusionWe recommend that stakeholders involved in creating and using estimates of genetic ancestry reconsider their policies for communicating with each other and with the public about the health implications of ancestry 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.