ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026
The dis-economy of precision medicine: how stratification multiplies social tension in healthcare systems.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precision medicine (PM) promises better outcomes by aligning prevention and treatment with molecular and phenotypic profiles. But precision is not merely a clinical refinement; it is an epistemic shift in how health systems classify risk, allocate eligibility and define value. In this study, we argue that broad adoption of PM creates structural tension within solidarity-based health systems and exposes limits in conventional cost-effectiveness evaluation. Ethically, PM converts pooled probabilistic uncertainty into individualized biological prediction, making access increasingly conditional on measurement, interpretation and pathway completion. Economically, PM fragments evaluable populations, destabilizes counterfactual comparison and shifts value from discrete products to information-dependent care pathways. As a result, standard metrics such as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) often become sensitive not only to biological effect, but also to governance: who is tested, how results are interpreted, which downstream services are funded and who can complete the pathway. We suggest that the instability observed in PM appraisal is not simply a technical problem of modeling, but a sign that the object of evaluation has changed. Recognizing this structural shift is essential if PM is to be integrated into health systems committed to both equity and evaluability.
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.