ReviewBehavior genetics2026
Imputing Parental Genotypes Through Mendelian Imputation: Ethical and Legal Considerations.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Behavioral Genetics as a Public Science: Introduction to the Special Issue.Behavior genetics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
41505022What 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.