ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Insights from social media into public perspectives on investigative genetic genealogy.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric analysis of investigative genetic genealogy in academic literature: Trends, networks, and emerging themes.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Ethical Priorities Among Commercial Genomics Professionals : Survey Evidence Highlighting Diversity, Fragmented Privacy Law, and Human Rights Risks as Central Participant Concerns.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Misleading Allegations and Failure to Recognize the Shifting Faces of Antisemitism: A Response to J.J. Amon.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Insights from social media into public perspectives on investigative genetic genealogy.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social media sites like X (formerly Twitter) increasingly serve as spaces for the public to discuss controversial topics. Social media can spark extreme viewpoints and spread biased or inaccurate information while simultaneously allowing for debate around policy-relevant topics. The arrest of Joseph J. DeAngelo in April 2018 ignited a barrage of social media conversations on how DNA and genetic genealogy led to the suspect. These conversations continued over the following years as policies changed and as the use of the approach expanded. We examined social media coverage of investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) to characterize the volume and temporal patterns in the topics and sentiments of these public conversations. First, using a data analytics tool Brandwatch Consumer Research, we built flexible search strings to collect tweets from the social media platform Twitter/X for IGG-relevant content published from 2018 to 2022, resulting in 24,209 tweets. Second, we applied informatics tools to the dataset to generate topic clusters and analyze trends in cluster volume and distribution over time to define the top 25 peaks in tweet volume, representing the 25 events that generated the highest volume of conversation over the 5-year period. Third, drawing on the contextual framework of key IGG events, we selected three of the top ten events to code for sentiment along with a randomly sampled subset of tweets across the timeframe. Qualitative coding for position on IGG revealed a majority of tweets were supportive of the use of IGG, but key concerns were also voiced about the ethics of IGG. Over a third of conversations on Twitter/X were on either cases solved or suggestions for use of IGG. We archived the social media data for future research. These data highlight key areas of public support and concern within IGG processes and across application contexts.
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.