ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Towards responsible genome-wide screening: normative and stakeholder considerations.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome-wide screening can be offered at various stages of life and serve multiple purposes, including early detection of treatable conditions, achieving health benefits, or enhancing reproductive choices. Although genome-wide screening offers many new possibilities, determining which genomic data to analyse, how to interpret results, and how to communicate findings, presents significant challenges. In our research, we explored considerations for responsible genome-wide screening by combining a normative analysis of three different settings (population screening, opportunistic screening, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing) with an exploration of stakeholder views (among 25 professionals and 15 potential users of screening). In doing so, we focused on the proportionality criterion and four key screening issues: (1) dealing with unsolicited, secondary and uncertain findings; (2) information and consent; (3) privacy, storage, and (re)use of data; and (4) non-participation in screening. Our findings show broad consensus on the need for a cautious approach towards genome-wide screening. The proportionality criterion requires that benefits outweigh harm on both individual and societal level. Although genome-wide testing offers a range of possible expansions of screening, evidence for the proportionality of an expansion is not always available. The expansion of direct-to-consumer genetic testing raises the most concerns in terms of proportionality. In all screening settings, the position of and advocacy for newborns and children deserve special attention. Given the already scarce resources and personnel in healthcare, responsible implementation of genome-wide screening must be grounded in well-defined normative frameworks, supported by pilot studies that critically evaluate harms and benefits on both individual and societal level.
Identifiers
42168351What 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.