Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38066171›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024

Glowing gels and pipettes aplenty: how do commercial stock image banks portray genetic tests?

Rachel Horton, Leah Boyle, Susie Weller, Anneke Lucassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence - the next generation of sequencing?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024
    Article
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.

Rachel HortonClinical Ethics, Law and Society Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6080-6354
Leah BoyleClinical Ethics, Law and Society Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Susie WellerClinical Ethics, Law and Society Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anneke LucassenClinical Ethics, Law and Society Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Anneke.lucassen@well.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3324-4338

Funding

Wellcome Trust 218092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

News stories and patient-facing material about genetic tests are often illustrated by images, but the content of such images and the messages they propagate are rarely scrutinised. Stock image banks were searched to identify a hundred images relating to genetic tests and analysed using a multimodal critical discourse approach, aiming to identify what the images featured, how they were composed, and what they communicated about genetic testing. We found that images tended to focus on technical aspects of sample processing (for example, pipetting) and drew on older technologies (for example slab gel electrophoresis) when representing data arising from genetic tests. Composition choices like focussing images around pipette tips, or emphasising colour or brightness of electrophoretic bands, represented genetic testing as precise, unambiguous and illuminating. Only 7% of images featured a person having a genetic test, and only one image alluded to communication of genetic results. Current popular visual representations of genetic testing rarely highlight the possibility of uncertain or non-diagnostic outcomes, and may contribute to high public expectations of informativeness and certainty from such tests.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingGelsHumansGels

Identifiers

PMID38066171
PMCPMC10999410

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.