ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024
Health equity innovation in precision medicine: data stewardship and agency to expand representation in clinicogenomics.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moving beyond the empty cell: The threat of decontextualized healthcare data.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Glioblastoma Radiotherapy Planning and Treatment.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most forms of clinical research examine a very minute cross section of the patient journey. Much of the knowledge and evidence base driving current genomic medicine practice entails blind spots arising from underrepresentation and lack of research participation in clinicogenomic databases. The flaws are perpetuated in AI models and clinical practice guidelines that reflect the lack of diversity in data being used. Participation in clinical research and biobanks is impeded in many populations due to a variety of factors that include knowledge, trust, healthcare access, administrative barriers, and technology gaps. A recent symposium brought industry, clinical, and research participants in clinicogenomics to discuss practical challenges and potential for new data sharing models that are patient centric and federated in nature and can address health disparities that might be perpetuated by lack of diversity in clinicogenomic research, biobanks, and datasets. Clinical data governance was recognized as a multiagent problem, and governance practices need to be more patient centric to address most barriers. Digital tools that preserve privacy, document provenance, and enable the management of data as intellectual property have great promise. Policy updates realigning and rationalizing clinical data governance practices are warranted.
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.