Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41876830›Full record

ArticleHistory and philosophy of the life sciences2026

Sorting out and navigating uncertainty in precision medicine.

Cornelius Borck, Simon Lohse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in History and philosophy of the life sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Cornelius BorckInstitute for History of Medicine and Science Studies, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Simon LohseInstitute for Science in Society, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. simon.lohse@ru.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4119-1929

Funding

Cluster of Excellence Precision Medicine in Chronic Inflammation EXC 2167
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncertainty has been highlighted as a paradoxical consequence of precision medicine (PM). In the life sciences and medicine, uncertainty is often conceptualized as something that can be clearly delimited and overcome by more information and better understanding derived from more research, more data, better tools etc. Building on the observation of uncertainty in PM and exploring it further by differentiating between socio-technical, epistemological and ontological uncertainty, we claim that at least some forms will likely turn out to be non-transient: Uncertainty in PM does not only result from missing or incomplete information, but also from insights into biological complexity and the destabilization of evidence frameworks. We conclude by discussing some implications for a successful implementation of PM in clinical practice by adequately navigating uncertainty.

Indexed as

Precision MedicineEvidence-Based MedicineHumansUncertaintyData integration and clinical decision makingEvidence-based medicineInterdisciplinary collaborationOntology and epistemology of precision medicinePersonalized medicineUncertainty paradox

Identifiers

PMID41876830
PMCPMC13013264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.