ArticleEthics & human research2020
Thought Leader Comparisons of Risks in Precision Medicine Research.
Article in Ethics & human research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Federated Analysis for Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing: A Technical and Legal Primer.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2023Review
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Precision Medicine: A Perspective.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
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
Biomedical research is increasingly capitalizing on an array of data to illuminate the interplay between "omics," lifestyle, and health. Leveraging this information presents opportunities to advance knowledge but also poses risks to research participants. In interviews with thought leaders, we asked which data type associated with a hypothetical precision medicine research endeavor was riskiest: 42% chose ongoing access to electronic health records, 17% chose genomic analyses of biospecimens, and 15% chose streaming data from mobile devices. Other responses included "It depends" (15%), the three types are equally risky (8%), and the combination of data types together is riskiest (3%). When asked to consider the hypothetical study overall, 60% rated the likelihood of the risks materializing as low, but 20% rated the potential consequences as severe. These results have implications for study design and informed consent, including placing appropriate emphasis on the risks and protections for the full range of data.
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.