ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2026
Racial and socioeconomic disparities in genetic evaluation and testing in the adult patient population.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2026. 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.
- To Test or Not to Test: A Real-World Study of Employee Views and Decision-Making for Genetic Testing in the Workplace.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Article
- A scalable approach to resolving variants of uncertain significance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic information directs clinical management and leads to improved health outcomes. However, there are scant data regarding the role of race or social determinants of health (SDOH) on access to genetics evaluation or outcomes of genetic testing in the general adult population. Here, we present the results of a retrospective study of 14,669 individuals seen over a 5-year period within the University of Pennsylvania and the Mass General Brigham Health Systems' Adult Genetics Clinics. We assessed the effects of electronic health record-reported race and neighborhood-level measures of SDOH on likelihood of evaluation in an Adult Genetics Clinic, likelihood of having genetic testing sent, and outcomes of genetic testing. Black individuals (odds ratio [OR] < 0.65; p < 2e-16) and those from disadvantaged neighborhoods (OR < 0.99; p < 0.0001) were significantly less likely to be evaluated in an Adult Genetics Clinic, with Black individuals significantly less likely to be evaluated for clinical indications with more subjective presentations (OR < 0.33; p < 0.003). When evaluated, Black individuals were more likely to undergo genetic testing (OR = 1.35; p = 0.005), and individuals from disadvantaged neighborhoods, independent of race, were more likely to have pathogenic variants identified on genetic testing (OR > 1.01; p < 0.002). These findings highlight significant disparities in genetic healthcare delivery among adult individuals based on race and social determinants of health-disparities that are poised to widen unless proactively addressed as genetic testing becomes increasingly central to the practice of clinical medicine. We provide resources and information for providers and affected individuals to reduce barriers to medical genetics care and promote equity in precision medicine initiatives.
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.