ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2017
Which Results to Return: Subjective Judgments in Selecting Medically Actionable Genes.
Article in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Religious factors predict support for genomic medicine more strongly than politics, education, or trust: A survey of 4,939 adults in the United States.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Actionability of Genetic Variants in Diabetes: Core Aspects and Applied Examples.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- How Clinicians Conceptualize "Actionability" in Genomic Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- The New Precision Stewards?Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- The passivists: Managing risk through institutionalized ignorance in genomic medicine.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
- Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- The impact of unsolicited findings in clinical exome sequencing, a qualitative interview study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- GENETIC DUTIES.William and Mary law review · 2020Article
- Genomics and Infectious Diseases: Expert Perspectives on Public Health Considerations regarding Actionability and Privacy.Ethics & human research · 2020Article
- Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Article
- Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group.Human mutation · 2018Article
- Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Age and perceived risks and benefits of preventive genomic screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- Improved ethical guidance for the return of results from psychiatric genomics research.Molecular psychiatry · 2018Article
- Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer.JCO precision oncology · 2018Article
- Online Education and e-Consent for GeneScreen, a Preventive Genomic Screening Study.Public health genomics · 2017Article
- Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in genomics have led to calls for returning information about medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patients, research subjects, biobank participants, and through screening programs, the general adult population. Which MAGs are returned affects the harms and benefits of every genetic testing endeavor. Despite published recommendations of selection criteria for MAGs to return, scant data exist regarding how decision makers actually apply such criteria.
methodsThe process and criteria used by researchers when selecting MAGs for a preventive genomic sequencing program targeting the general adult population were examined. The authors observed and audio-recorded the gene selection meetings, and analyzed meeting transcripts, gene scoring sheets, and meeting handouts.
resultsTo select MAGs, the committee imported, from a preexisting project, "a semiquantitative metric" that scores genes on five criteria. Numerous subjective judgments and conceptual challenges in defining and applying the five criteria complicated the selection process. Criteria-related challenges also included the limited evidence available about facts fundamental to the scoring decisions and the emergence and application of criteria that were not part of the original metric.
conclusionsWhen identifying MAGs appropriate for screening and return, decision makers must expect and prepare to address such issues as the inevitability of subjective judgments, limited evidence about fundamental decision-making elements, the conceptual complexity of defining criteria, and the emergence of unplanned criteria during the gene selection process.
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.