ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2021
The personalized medicine discourse: archaeology and genealogy.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exposomics: a review of methodologies, applications, and future directions in molecular medicine.EMBO molecular medicine · 2025Review
- KIT 1 (Keep in Touch) Project-Televisits for Cancer Patients during Italian Lockdown for COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real-World Experience of Establishing a Telemedicine System.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- The illusion of immediacy: on the need for human synchronization in data-intensive medicine.Frontiers in sociology · 2023Article
- Psychological tendencies of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.Scandinavian journal of psychology · 2022Article
- Personalized Clinical Phenotyping through Systems Medicine and Artificial Intelligence.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Toward a holistic model of personalized and integrative medicine: The distinctive role of Persian medicine.Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalized Medicine (PM) is an evolving and often missinterpreted concept and no agreement of personalization exist. We examined the PM discourse towards foucauldian archeological and genealogical analysis to understand the meaning of "personalization" in medicine. In the archaeological analysis, the historical evolution is characterized by the coexistence of two epistemologies: the holistic vision and the omic sciences. The genealogical analysis shows how these epistemologies may affect the meaning of "person" and, consequently, the ontology of patients. Additionally, substitutions/confusions of the term PM are related to continuously evolving medical knowledge and new technologies; different etymological roots of "personalization" and "person"; and cultural differences. In conclusion, if the definition of "personalization" in medicine is not clear, patients might get wrong expectations about what is achievable for their health. Therefore, epistemological trends should not be separated as they drive same goals: providing accurate diagnosis and treatments based on large data to predict disease progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33389365What 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.