ReviewHuman genomics2023
Determining the utility of diagnostic genomics: a conceptual framework.
Review in Human genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Top 50 Cited Articles in Pediatric Neurology: A Bibliometric Analysis.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2026Article
- Determining the value of genomics in healthcare.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Development and evaluation of methods of clinical utility-based cut-point selection of diagnostic biomarkers: an analysis based on population-level parametric distributions of test results with application of clinical diagnostic data.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Utilisation of subsidised genetic and genomic testing in a publicly funded healthcare system 2014-2023.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Using implementation science to navigate the complexity of integrating genomics into healthcare.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the benefits, harms and costs of genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Exploring the impact and utility of genomic sequencing in established CKD.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Review
- Genetic Testing of Movements Disorders: A Review of Clinical Utility.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic efficacy is now well established for diagnostic genomic testing in rare disease. Assessment of overall utility is emerging as a key next step, however ambiguity in the conceptualisation and measurement of utility has impeded its assessment in a comprehensive manner. We propose a conceptual framework to approach determining the broader utility of diagnostic genomics encompassing patients, families, clinicians, health services and health systems to assist future evidence generation and funding decisions. BODY: Building upon previous work, our framework posits that utility of diagnostic genomics consists of three dimensions: the domain or type and extent of utility (what), the relationship and perspective of utility (who), and the time horizon of utility (when). Across the description, assessment, and summation of these three proposed dimensions of utility, one could potentially triangulate a singular point of utility axes of type, relationship, and time. Collectively, the multiple different points of individual utility might be inferred to relate to a concept of aggregate utility.
conclusionThis ontological framework requires retrospective and prospective application to enable refinement and validation. Moving forward our framework, and others which have preceded it, promote a better characterisation and description of genomic utility to inform decision-making and optimise the benefits of genomic diagnostic testing.
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.