ArticlePersonalized medicine2018
Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.
Article in Personalized medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Schoolhouse risk: Can we mitigate the polygenic Pygmalion effect?Acta psychologica · 2024Trial
- Implementation of Public Health Genomics in Africa: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, challenges, and recommendations.Journal of medical virology · 2023Review
- A Comparison of Patients' and Physicians' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Precision Oncology Tests.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- "Choice of law" in precision medicine research.American journal of human genetics · 2022Review
- Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Balancing External Validity and Concern for Psychosocial Harms in Translational Genetic Research.Ethics & human research · 2021Article
- An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- On What We Have Learned and Still Need to Learn about the Psychosocial Impacts of Genetic Testing.The Hastings Center report · 2019Article
- Perspectives on Precision Medicine in a Tribally Managed Primary Care Setting.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.
Funding
Abstract
As new, high-powered sequencing technologies are increasingly incorporated into genomics research, we believe that there has been a break point in how risks and benefits associated with genetic information are being characterized and understood. Genomic sequencing provides the potential benefit of a wealth of information, but also has the potential to alter how we conceptualize risks of sequencing. Until now, our conceptions of risks and benefits have been generally static, arising out of the early ethical, legal and social implications studies conducted in the context of targeted genetics. This paper investigates how the increasing availability of genetic information is changing views about risks and benefits, particularly examining our evolving understanding of psychosocial harms and our expanding conception of benefit. We argue that the lack of robust empirical evidence of psychosocial harms and the expanding view that benefits of genomic research include indirect familial benefit necessitate continued ethical, legal and social implications research.
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.