ReviewHuman genetics2018
South Korea: in the midst of a privacy reform centered on data sharing.
Review in Human genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Robotics in Meeting Institutional Goals: A Unified Strategy to Facilitate Program Excellence.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- Realising respiratory microbiomic meta-analyses: time for a standardised framework.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Genetic discrimination: introducing the Asian perspective to the debate.NPJ genomic medicine · 2021Review
- Using a Tailored Digital Health Intervention for Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing in Swiss and Korean Families With Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Protocol for the DIALOGUE Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Public Attitudes Toward Precision Medicine: A Nationwide Survey on Developing a National Cohort Program for Citizen Participation in the Republic of Korea.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Why Do Data Users Say Health Care Data Are Difficult to Use? A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Regulating the Secondary Use of Data for Research: Arguments Against Genetic Exceptionalism.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Population data science: advancing the safe use of population data for public benefit.Epidemiology and health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With rapid developments in genomic and digital technologies, genomic data sharing has become a key issue for the achievement of precision medicine in South Korea. The legal and administrative framework for data sharing and protection in this country is currently under intense scrutiny from national and international stakeholders. Policymakers are assessing the relevance of specific restrictions in national laws and guidelines for better alignment with international approaches. This manuscript will consider key issues in international genome data sharing in South Korea, including consent, privacy, security measures, compatible adequacy and oversight, and map out an approach to genomic data sharing that recognizes the importance of patient engagement and responsible use of data in South Korea.
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.