Exploring the ethics of genetic prioritisation for COVID-19 vaccines.

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

2citing papers in PubMed

0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

Polymorphisms within the SARS-CoV-2 Human Receptor Genes Associate with Variable Disease Outcomes across Ethnicities.Genes · 2023
Article
Nucleotides Entrapped in Liposome Nanovesicles as Tools for Therapeutic and Diagnostic Use in Biomedical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2023
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jago BruceWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Oxford, OX3 7LF, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6779-3450

Stephanie B JohnsonWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Oxford, OX3 7LF, USA. stephanie.johnson@bdi.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6777-8816

Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 221038/Z/20/Z

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is evidence to suggest that host genomic factors may account for disease response variability in COVID-19 infection. In this paper, we consider if and how host genomics should influence decisions about vaccine allocation. Three potential host genetic factors are explored: vulnerability to infection, resistance to infection, and increased infectivity. We argue for the prioritisation of the genetically vulnerable in vaccination schemes, and evaluate the potential for ethical de-prioritisation of individuals with genetic markers for resistance. Lastly, we discuss ethical prioritisation of individuals with genetic markers for increased infectivity (those more likely to spread COVID-19).

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesGenetic MarkersHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID35250030

DOI10.1038/s41431-022-01058-1

PMCPMC8898655

OpenAlexW4220911168

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.