ArticleAJOB neuroscience
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Based Systems for Personalising Epilepsy Treatment: Research Ethics Challenges and New Insights for the Ethics of Personalised Medicine.
Article in AJOB neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating neural organoids and AI: increasing the risk of artificial consciousness or medical malpractice?Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Article
- Where is the Ethical Debate around Phenotypic Screening of Prenatal Tissue Using Stem Cell-Derived Tissue Constructs?Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Article
- A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Ethical and regulatory issues of stem cell-derived 3-dimensional organoid and tissue therapy for personalised regenerative medicine.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- CDKL5 deficiency disorder: molecular insights and mechanisms of pathogenicity to fast-track therapeutic development.Biochemical Society transactions · 2022Review
- Investigating the feasibility and ethical implications of phenotypic screening using stem cell-derived tissue models to detect and manage disease.Stem cell reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ABSTRACTThis paper examines potential ethical and legal issues arising during the research, development and clinical use of a proposed strategy in personalized medicine (PM): using human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived tissue cultures as predictive models of individual patients to inform treatment decisions. We focus on epilepsy treatment as a likely early application of this strategy, for which early-stage stage research is underway. In relation to the research process, we examine issues associated with biological samples; data; health; vulnerable populations; neural organoids; and what level of accuracy justifies using the iPSC-derived neural tissue system. In relation to clinical use, we examine potential uses in pre-natal screening, and effects on clinical decision-making. Although our focus is providing recommendations for researchers developing work in this area, we identify the novel issue of deciding on an acceptable accuracy level for the system. We also emphasize an issue thus far neglected in the ethics of PM: PM tends to represent treatment decisions as though they should be directed solely by biomedical information, but this in itself could be detrimental to best personalizing treatment decisions in the clinic.
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.