Cited by 139Biomedical Ethics and RegulationMedical and Health Sciences ResearchRace, Genetics, and Society

Direct-to-Consumer Testing 2.0: Emerging Models of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

Open access
Allyse, Megan A., Robinson, David H., Ferber, Matthew J., Sharp, Richard R.·2018·Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing emerged in the early 2000s as a means of allowing consumers to access information on their genetics without the involvement of a physician. Although early models of DTC were popular with consumers, they were controversial in medical and regulatory circles. In this article, we trace the history of DTC genetic testing, discuss its regulatory implications, and describe the emergence of a new hybrid model we call DTC 2.0.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.11.001

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The direct-to-consumer testing market has expanded, is variably controlled by country-specific regulations, and is moving toward models with direct access to ordering physicians and genetic counselors.

    “One consequence of these difficulties has been an expanding direct-to-consumer testing market, variably controlled by country-specific regulations150, which is moving beyond a focus on ancestry and personal traits, towards models in which individuals have direct access to ordering physicians and genetic counselors151.”

    From A brief history of human disease genetics (2020) · cites this paper as [151]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Illumina. Illumina, Warburg Pincus, and Sutter Hill ventures form Helix to accelerate consumer adoption of genomics. Press Release. https://www.illumina.com/company/news-center/ press-releases/press-release-details.html?newsid¼2080135. Is- sued August 18, 2015. Accessed October 24, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allyse, M. A., Robinson, D. H., Ferber, M. J., & Sharp, R. R.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Sharp, Richard R.
Venue
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
93
Issue
1
Pages
113-120
ISSN
0025-6196 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2781996111
Cited by
139
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 8
FWCI
13.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mayo Clinic Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
Keywords
direct-to-consumer genetic testing, genetic testing regulation, hybrid business models, genetic counseling
MeSH terms
Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Continuing, Genetic Testing, Humans, Minnesota, History, 21st Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review