ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2019
Evidence for personalised medicine: mechanisms, correlation, and new kinds of black box.
Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2019. 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, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sorting out and navigating uncertainty in precision medicine.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026Article
- Towards functional precision medicine? Evidence standards of organoids as patient-specific models.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026Article
- Integrating neural organoids and AI: increasing the risk of artificial consciousness or medical malpractice?Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Article
- A treatment within sight: challenges in the development of stem cell-derived photoreceptor therapies for retinal degenerative diseases.Frontiers in transplantation · 2023Review
- A reformulated contextual model of psychotherapy for treating anxiety and depression.Clinical psychology review · 2020Review
- Layer-By-Layer: The Case for 3D Bioprinting Neurons to Create Patient-Specific Epilepsy Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Team Functioning And Beliefs About Team Effectiveness In Inter-Professional Teams: Questionnaire Development And Validation.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2019Article
- 3D brain tissue physiological model with co-cultured primary neurons and glial cells in hydrogels.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalised medicine (PM) has been discussed as a medical paradigm shift that will improve health while reducing inefficiency and waste. At the same time, it raises new practical, regulatory, and ethical challenges. In this paper, we examine PM strategies epistemologically in order to develop capacities to address these challenges, focusing on a recently proposed strategy for developing patient-specific models from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) so as to make individualised treatment predictions. We compare this strategy to two main PM strategies-stratified medicine and computational models. Drawing on epistemological work in the philosophy of medicine, we explain why these two methods, while powerful, are neither truly personalised nor, epistemologically speaking, novel strategies. Both are forms of correlational black box. We then argue that the iPSC models would count as a new kind of black box. They would not rely entirely on mechanistic knowledge, and they would utilise correlational evidence in a different way from other strategies-a way that would enable personalised predictions. In arguing that the iPSC models would present a novel method of gaining evidence for clinical practice, we provide an epistemic analysis that can help to inform the practical, regulatory, and ethical challenges of developing an iPSC system.
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.