ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
Development of a digital risk-prediction tool based on family health history for the general population: legal and ethical implications.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases, both inherited and familial, indicate a risk of early and preventable cardiovascular events for relatives of affected individuals. A digital risk-prediction tool that enables general population individuals to evaluate their cardiovascular risk based on family health history could be a responsible approach to facilitate early detection and improve public health, but development and use of such a tool is not without legal and ethical requirements. At the start of tool development, experts addressed potential legal and ethical implications. Especially European Union (EU) regulations could present potential obstacles for the tool's development, broader availability and general use. A first example is that the EU General Data Protection Regulation does not allow the tool to collect health data about relatives without their consent; the alternative is data anonymisation. This requirement has major consequences for the tool's usefulness and raises ethical concerns about who 'the owner' is of family data. A second example is related to the EU's Medical Device Regulation: if software generates health risks or provides medical advice, it requires a CE mark from a 'notified body', an extensive and costly procedure. In this article, we describe these implications in more detail and discuss possible solutions. To conclude, alongside national law, European law can impact on the development of digital tools that collect family health data to provide information on health risks. We recommend including experts in law and ethics in developmental stages of such tools which are likely to become more frequent in routine public care.
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.