Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41505022›Full record

ReviewBehavior genetics2026

Imputing Parental Genotypes Through Mendelian Imputation: Ethical and Legal Considerations.

Margot P van de Weijer, Emily Bassett, Paul S Appelbaum, Evan J Giangrande, Lucas J Matthews

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Behavior genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Margot P van de WeijerGenetic Epidemiology, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.p.vandeweijer@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9720-9481
Emily BassettMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6650-3108
Paul S AppelbaumDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1940-0042
Evan J Giangrande *Analytic & Translational Genetics Unit and Psychiatric & Neurodevelopmental Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8023-0062
Lucas J Matthews *Department of Medical Humanities & Ethics, Columbia University, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3476-7571

Funding

The Geneticization of Education: ethical, social, and policy implications of polygenic scores for educational attainmentK01HG011683 · NHGRI · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI MATTHEWS, LUCAS JOHN · 2021 to 2025
$921k
European Research Council 101076686NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG011683NIH HHS K01HG011683
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mendelian imputation is a promising method for imputing missing parental genotypes and estimating direct and indirect genetic effects. While the method has clear scientific benefits, so far there has been little reflection on its legal and ethical implications. In this perspective, we discuss these considerations and provide recommendations on transparent use of this method. We argue that imputed genotypes should be considered identifiable, personal data, and that using these data requires informed consent. We distinguish different scenarios where consent may be missing, such as an individual previously not having been contacted for consent, or a person who was contacted but did not reply or did not wish to participate. Informed consent is important across all these scenarios as it allows individuals to decide whether they want to participate in a study. In addition, transparent communication on how people's data are used is important for public perception of science, and a failure to communicate this may contribute to mistrust. We discuss potential harmful applications of Mendelian imputation, and how robust regulatory frameworks guiding Institutional Review Boards on novel advanced methods such as Mendelian imputation are currently missing. This complicates decision making, especially when researchers argue for public interest as a lawful basis for foregoing consent. We end with a set of recommendations for (1) future genetic research projects for which Mendelian imputation will be possible; (2) research that has already been conducted using this method; and (3) the inclusion of ethical considerations in the publication of novel techniques/analyses.

Indexed as

EthicsGenetic nurtureGenotypesInformed consentMendelian imputation

Identifiers

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.