Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40100620›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2026

The Concept of Personal Utility in Genomic Testing: Three Ethical Tensions.

Gabriel John Watts, Ainsley J Newson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Restraints on Personal Utility in Genomic Testing.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gabriel John WattsThe University of Sydney.ORCID 0000-0003-3421-5862
Ainsley J NewsonThe University of Sydney.ORCID 0000-0002-3460-772X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has traditionally focused on efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. There has long been concern, however, that this is determined by the goals of healthcare providers/payers, not patients. As a result, HTA arguably fails to reflect the overall value of health technologies-including their "non-clinical" or "personal" utility to patients and their families. The use of genomic testing in clinical care is one domain where this problem is evident, as the personal utility of results is often especially significant. As such, there are growing calls for HTA frameworks to adopt personal utility as a distinct element of value when assessing clinical genomic tests. We agree that personal utility is important to HTA in clinical genomics. However, against a trend toward comprehensive conceptions of personal utility within HTA, we advocate for a restrictive approach to assessing the value of personal utility in the case of clinical genomic testing.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingGenomicsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingHumansbioethicsGenetics (clinical)genomic medicinehealth policymoral theoryregulatory issues

Identifiers

PMID40100620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.