ReviewTrends in genetics : TIG2020
Are Public Repository Requirements Exacerbating Lack of Diversity?
Review in Trends in genetics : TIG, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunities to cultivate trust through communication behaviors.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Key contextual factors involved with participation in medical and genomic screening and research for African American and White Americans: a qualitative inquiry.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Although public repository requirements are aimed at researchers and designed to ensure that the utility of the limited data we have is optimized, these policies also have ramifications for research participants. In this opinion article, I discuss how the nature of such repositories can subject participants whose data are 'banked' to unwitting participation in scientific projects they might find objectionable. In addition, concerns about the privacy of banked genomic data are exacerbated by recent projects that demonstrate the ability to re-identify genomic data, raising the specter of discriminatory or oppressive use of this information. These concerns are most likely to discourage participation in research that requires data sharing among those who have experienced these phenomena and are less likely to discount their likelihood.
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.