ArticleF1000Research2017
Genetics in the 21st Century: Implications for patients, consumers and citizens.
Article in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Knowledge and attitudes towards genomic medicine and pharmacogenomics of medical undergraduate students in Sri Lanka: a cross-sectional study.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Community Collaboration in Public Health Genetic Literacy: Methods for Co-Designing Educational Resources for Equitable Genomics Research and Practice.Public health genomics · 2025Article
- A collaborative model for Medical Genetics services delivery in Portugal: a multidisciplinary perspective.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Attitudes towards and sociodemographic determinants of genetic test usage in the USA; data from the Health Information National Trend Survey, 2020.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Epione application: An integrated web‑toolkit of clinical genomics and personalized medicine in systemic lupus erythematosus.International journal of molecular medicine · 2022Article
- Proteotranscriptomics - A facilitator in omics research.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Review
- The attitude of young people in the city of Yakutsk to DNA-testing.International journal of circumpolar health · 2021Article
- Demetra Application: An integrated genotype analysis web server for clinical genomics in endometriosis.International journal of molecular medicine · 2021Article
- Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Article
- German and Italian Users of Web-Accessed Genetic Data: Attitudes on Personal Utility and Personal Sharing Preferences. Results of a Comparative Survey (n=192).Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Attitudes of publics who are unwilling to donate DNA data for research.European journal of medical genetics · 2019Article
- Popular culture and genetics; friend, foe or something more complex?European journal of medical genetics · 2019Article
- Assessing knowledge of genetics in undergraduate students in Quito, Ecuador.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Society and personal genome data.Human molecular genetics · 2018Review
- From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first human genome project, completed in 2003, uncovered the genetic building blocks of humankind. Painstakingly cataloguing the basic constituents of our DNA ('genome sequencing') took ten years, over three billion dollars and was a multinational collaboration. Since then, our ability to sequence genomes has been finessed so much that by 2018 it is possible to explore the 20,000 or so human genes for under £1000, in a matter of days. Such testing offers clues to our past, present and future health, as well as information about how we respond to medications so that truly 'personalised medicine' is now moving closer to a reality. The impact of such a 'genomic era' is likely to have some level of impact on an increasingly large number of us, even if we are not directly using healthcare services ourselves. We explore how advancements in genetics are likely to be experienced by people, as patients, consumers and citizens; and urge policy makers to take stock of the pervasive nature of the technology as well as the human response to it.
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.