ArticlePLoS genetics2025
Investigative genetic genealogy practices warranting policy attention: Results of a modified policy Delphi.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2025. 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.
- Genealogically bewildered individuals and forensic identification: a review of current and emerging solutions.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for blood purification in hypertriglyceridemic acute pancreatitis: a Delphi study protocol.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A technique known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) was first introduced to criminal investigations in 2018, and it has since been used by U.S. law enforcement to help identify hundreds of criminal perpetrators and unidentified human remains. As expertise in IGG grows, policymakers have shown interest in regulating it. To help inform these efforts and to promote coherence in IGG governance as it expands, we recruited experts representing a spectrum of IGG-relevant professions and perspectives to identify and prioritize IGG practices for policy attention and to develop policy options for addressing them. In two rounds of a modified policy Delphi, 31 participants prioritized nine IGG practices for policy attention. These top priority practices relate to: consent and notification; case eligibility and criteria; data management, privacy, and security; and governance and accountability. Participants expressed a range of opinions, some strongly held, and did not reach complete consensus with respect to any of the practices. However, convergence was strongest with respect to law enforcement participation in direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy databases against terms of service, which a large majority opposed and almost half evaluated as top priority for policy attention. Participants also voiced strong and consistent concern about management of data and samples collected and generated during IGG and the governance of private laboratories involved in IGG. Our study demonstrates the feasibility and value of engaging with diverse experts over an extended period on a pressing matter of public policy and provides a needed empirical foundation for IGG policymaking.
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.