ReviewCambridge prisms. Precision medicine2023
Ethical issues raised by new genomic technologies: the case study of newborn genome screening.
Review in Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating whole genome sequencing for rare diseases in newborn screening: evidence synthesis from a series of systematic reviews.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Public and parent perspectives on genomic sequencing in newborn screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- The UK National screening committee, the newborn genomes programme, and the ethical conundrum for UK newborn screening.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of Chronic Granulomatous Disease: Strengths and Challenges in the Genomic Era.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023).International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- Population health management genomic new-born screens and multi-omics intercepts.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- Article
- IntroducingCambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Article
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
Over the last two decades, the ability to sequence a person's genetic code has improved exponentially, while the cost of doing so has plummeted. As genome sequencing is used more widely, diagnoses are being found for people with previously unexplained rare disease, and this has raised hopes that such analysis might usefully be employed to detect and mitigate diseases as early as possible in the life course. However, research with adults by initiatives such as population biobanks should shake our confidence in our ability to make clear health predictions from a genetic code - in many cases, we are learning that the links between genomic variants and disease are far less strong than we once thought. The UK Newborn Genomes Programme aspires to sequence up to 200,000 babies at birth, and analyse their genomic data aiming to identify '
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.