ReviewAdvances in genetics2017
Integrated Genomic Medicine: A Paradigm for Rare Diseases and Beyond.
Review in Advances in genetics, 2017. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the gap: understanding the perspective of healthcare professional students towards precision medicine in a Nigerian tertiary institution (a cross-sectional study).BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Comparison of Metabolites and Gut Microbes between Patients with Ulcerative Colitis and Healthy Individuals for an Integrative Medicine Approach to Ulcerative Colitis-A Pilot Observational Clinical Study (STROBE Compliant).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Accommodating Serial Correlation and Sequential Design Elements in Personalized Studies and Aggregated Personalized Studies.Harvard data science review · 2022Article
- Power and Design Issues in Crossover-Based N-Of-1 Clinical Trials with Fixed Data Collection Periods.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Personalized Medicine.Cancer treatment and research · 2019Article
- Personalized medicine: motivation, challenges, and progress.Fertility and sterility · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Individualized medicine, or the tailoring of therapeutic interventions to a patient's unique genetic, biochemical, physiological, exposure and behavioral profile, has been enhanced, if not enabled, by modern biomedical technologies such as high-throughput DNA sequencing platforms, induced pluripotent stem cell assays, biomarker discovery protocols, imaging modalities, and wireless monitoring devices. Despite successes in the isolated use of these technologies, however, it is arguable that their combined and integrated use in focused studies of individual patients is the best way to not only tailor interventions for those patients, but also shed light on treatment strategies for patients with similar conditions. This is particularly true for individuals with rare diseases since, by definition, they will require study without recourse to other individuals, or at least without recourse to many other individuals. Such integration and focus will require new biomedical scientific paradigms and infrastructure, including the creation of databases harboring study results, the formation of dedicated multidisciplinary research teams and new training programs. We consider the motivation and potential for such integration, point out areas in need of improvement, and argue for greater emphasis on improving patient health via technological innovations, not merely improving the technologies themselves. We also argue that the paradigm described can, in theory, be extended to the study of individuals with more common diseases.
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.