ArticleWilliam and Mary law review2020
GENETIC DUTIES.
Article in William and Mary law review, 2020. 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.
- Ethical, legal, and policy dimensions and contentions for reanalysis and reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing results.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Practical considerations for reinterpretation of individual genetic variants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023Article
- Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- How should we address the inevitable harms from non-negligent variant reclassification in predictive genetic testing?Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Challenges of variant reinterpretation: Opinions of stakeholders and need for guidelines.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- An Ethics Checklist for Digital Health Research in Psychiatry: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- UNLIMITED MEDICAL LIABILITY?Emory law journal online · 2022Article
- Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most of our genetic information does not change, yet the results of our genetic tests might. Labs reclassify genetic variants in response to advances in genetic science. As a result, a person who took a test in 2010 could take the same test with the same lab in 2020 and get a different result. However, no legal duty requires labs or physicians to inform patients when a lab reclassifies a variant, even if the reclassification communicates clinically actionable information. This Article considers the need for such duties and their potential challenges. In so doing, it offers much-needed guidance to physicians and labs, who may face liability, and to courts, which will hear these cases.
Identifiers
37654734PMC10471136What 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.