Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34796049›Full record

ReviewCureus2021

"I Agree to Disagree": Comparative Ethical and Legal Analysis of Big Data and Genomics for Privacy, Consent, and Ownership.

Seema Belani, Georgina C Tiarks, Neil Mookerjee, Vijay Rajput

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genomic Medicine and Individual Autonomy: Reflections on Knowledge Societies and Governmentality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Barriers of artificial intelligence implementation in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Seema BelaniCollege of Allopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, USA.
Georgina C TiarksCollege of Allopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Davie, USA.
Neil MookerjeeMedical Education, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, USA.
Vijay RajputMedical Education, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

statement of purposeDigital healthcare, as it relates to big data and genomics, presents a real threat to privacy and ownership rights for individuals and society. Research Question/Hypothesis: Our experience with genomics provides a lens to facilitate the way we navigate toward a future health data space. Contemporary and innovative legal and ethical models can be applied to concepts of privacy, ownership, and consent in relation to big data. SIGNIFICANCE: Technological innovation has transformed healthcare at a faster rate than legal reform, security measures, and consent policies can adapt. The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has been recognized as a work in progress, with respect to big data as it relates to healthcare and individual wellbeing. The shortcomings of HIPAA, and its application to big data, can be paralleled with its prior limitations surrounding genomics in the last two decades. The Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (2008) and Genomic Data Sharing Policy (2015) were established to overcome HIPAA's inadequacies concerning genetic discrimination and security. These policies can serve as a basic model for our approach to legislative reform as it relates to privacy risks with big data generated in healthcare and from healthy individuals in society who are not patients. In addition to notions of privacy, concepts of ownership and consent have become increasingly vague and opaque. The technological advancements have facilitated access and transmission of information, such that big data can be sold for financial gain for commercial enterprise. This applies to genomics, with companies like 23andMe, in addition to big data, as it relates to big tech giants like Apple or Google who oversee wearable and search term data. Clarity of ownership within a digital healthcare arena needs to be defined through ethical and legal frameworks at a global level. APPROACH: A narrative review of the literature published between 2010 and 2021 was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles discussing privacy, security, ownership, big data, and genomics were included as relevant literature. IMPORTANCE: As a society, we are at a crossroads; we must determine the extent of privacy that we are willing to give for science and society. We cannot continue with the current status quo in hope that individual will be used for the greater good of society. We need to strive for a cohesive approach to combat privacy violations by encouraging legislative reform, ethical accountability, and individual responsibility.

Indexed as

big databioethicsconsentethicsgenomicslegalownershipprivacysecurity

Identifiers

PMID34796049
PMCPMC8589338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.