ReviewAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics2019
Ethical implications of using biobanks and population databases for genetic suicide research.
Review in American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital death and posthumous data: a glocal, relational perspective.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Comprehensive information management system for a medical research cohort biobank based on quality by design.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Applicability and usefulness of the Declaration of Helsinki for forensic research with human cadavers and remains.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023Article
- A call for an ethical framework when using social media data for artificial intelligence applications in public health research.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2020Article
- Suicide Risk Assessment and Prevention: Challenges and Opportunities.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2020Review
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
Abstract
This article provides a review of the ethical considerations that drive research policy and practice related to the genetic study of suicide. As the tenth cause of death worldwide, suicide constitutes a substantial public health concern. Biometrical studies and population-based molecular genetic studies provide compelling evidence of the utility of investigating genetic underpinnings of suicide. International, federal, and institutional policies regulating research are explored through the lenses of the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Trapped between the Common Rule's definition of human subjects, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's protected information, suicide decedent data occupy an ethical gray area fraught with jurisdictional, legal, and social implications. Two avenues of research, biobanks and psychological autopsies, provide tangible application for the ethical principles examining the risks to participants and their families. Additionally, studies surveying public opinion about research methods, especially broad consent, are explored. Our approach of applying the four ethical principles to policy, sample collection, data storage, and secondary research applications can also be applied to genetic research with other populations. We conclude that broad consent for secondary research, as well as next-of-kin at the time of autopsy, serve to satisfy privacy and confidentiality under the ethical principle of autonomy. We recommend ongoing ethical evaluation of research policy and practice.
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.