ArticlePersonalized medicine2017
The fuzzy world of precision medicine: deliberations of a precision medicine tumor board.
Article in Personalized medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors Associated With Implementation of Biomarker Testing and Strategies to Improve Its Clinical Uptake in Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using Theoretical Domains Framework.JCO precision oncology · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Algorithms in Molecular Tumour Boards-Managing the Gap Between Research and Clinic in Precision Medicine.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- Therapeutic biomarkers in acute myeloid leukemia: functional and genomic approaches.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Radioresistance of Human Cancers: Clinical Implications of Genetic Expression Signatures.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Implementing a clinical cutting-edge and decision-making activity: an ethnographic teamwork approach to a molecular tumorboard.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Predictive article recommendation using natural language processing and machine learning to support evidence updates in domain-specific knowledge graphs.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Molecular matching and treatment strategies for advanced stage lung cancer at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center: A three-year review of a Molecular Tumor Board.Practical laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- Referrals to a Phase I Clinic and Trial Enrollment in the Molecular Screening Era.The oncologist · 2019Article
- Interactive or static reports to guide clinical interpretation of cancer genomics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- Applying Precision Oncology Principles in Radiation Oncology.JCO precision oncology · 2018Review
- Evaluating Clinical Genome Sequence Analysis by Watson for Genomics.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo understand how a cancer precision medicine tumor board (CPM-TB) made choices about return of results. MATERIALS &
methodsObserved CPM-TB deliberations and completed in-depth interviews with committee members.
resultsResponding to complex evidence of ambiguous significance, deliberations of the CPM-TB were predicated on analytic validity and clinical utility. Members had concerns both about potential harms due to returning results based on weak evidence and about withholding potentially meaningful results. Group dynamics and the clinical experiences of individual committee members shaped their work.
conclusionBoth scientific evidence and the social context surrounding deliberations of a CPM-TB influenced decisions about return of results. Subjective elements, while present in any scientific endeavor, may carry more weight in the face of ambiguous findings.
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.