ReviewNature genetics2025
Overcoming challenges associated with broad sharing of human genomic data.
Review in Nature genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- HPRC2: A human pangenome reference with near-complete coverage of common genetic variation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Kauro, a graph-based chatbot for high-fidelity information transmission conversations.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Impact of the 23andMe bankruptcy on preserving the public benefit of scientific data.Nature genetics · 2025Article
- Toward Responsible and Sustainable Data Sharing in Large-scale Cohort-based Genomic Research.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Ethics choices during the Human Genome Project reflected their policy world, not ours.Cell genomics · 2025Article
- Monitoring diversity in genome-wide association studies requires measuring and reporting on immigration-related factors.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- The Subtle Crisis: Public Domain Genomes and the Ethics of Translational Infrastructure.Ethics & human researchArticle
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
Since the Human Genome Project, the consensus position in genomics has been that data should be shared widely to achieve the greatest societal benefit. This position relies on imprecise definitions of the concept of 'broad data sharing'. Accordingly, the implementation of data sharing varies among landmark genomic studies. In this Perspective, we identify definitions of broad that have been used interchangeably, despite their distinct implications. We further offer a framework with clarified concepts for genomic data sharing and probe six examples in genomics that produced public data. Finally, we articulate three challenges. First, we explore the need to reinterpret the limits of general research use data. Second, we consider the governance of public data deposition from extant samples. Third, we ask whether, in light of changing concepts of broad, participants should be encouraged to share their status as participants publicly or not. Each of these challenges is followed with recommendations.
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.