The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Third party interpretation of raw genetic data: an ethical exploration
Open accessAbstract
In the wake of recent regulations targeting direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT), an increasing number of websites have emerged that offer consumers alternative means to derive health information from their DTC-GT raw data. While the ethical concerns associated with DTC-GT have been extensively discussed in the literature, the implications of third party interpretation (TPI) websites have remained largely unexplored. Here we sought to describe these services and elucidate their ethical implications in the context of the current DTC-GT debate. We reviewed five popular TPI websites that use SNP-based genomic data to report health-related information: Promethease, Interpretome, LiveWello, Codegen.eu, and Enlis Personal. We found that many of the ethical concerns previously described in DTC-GT also applied to TPI websites, including inadequate informed consent, questionable clinical validity and utility, and lack of medical supervision. However, some concerns about data usage and privacy reported in DTC-GT were less prominent in the five TPI websites we studied: none of them sold or shared user data, and 3/5 sites did not retain data in the long term. In addition, while exaggerated claims and inaccurate advertising have been frequently problematic in DTC-GT, advertising was minimal in the TPI sites we assessed, and 4/5 made no claims of health benefits. Overall, TPI adds a new dimension to the ethical debate surrounding DTC-GT, and awareness of these services will become increasingly important as personal genomics continues to expand. This study constitutes the first detailed ethical analysis of these services, and presents a starting point for further research and ethical reflection.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“One recent study on such third-party companies found that several operate by querying publicly available databases, such as dbSNP, and reporting the classification provided in the database, despite reports that the majority of classifications in some publicly available databases are incorrect.6,7”
From False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- Howard HC, Borry P : Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genome Med 2013; 5: 45. · DOI
- Nelson TN, Armstrong L, Richer J et al: CCMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Clin Genet 2011; 81: 1.
- Caulfield T, McGuire AL : Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med 2012; 63: 23–33. · DOI
- ESHG: Statement of the ESHG on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes. Eur J Hum Genet 2010; 18: 1271–1273. · DOI
- Hudson K, Javitt G, Burke W, Byers P : ASHG Statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 1392–1395. · DOI
- ACMG: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a revised position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016; 18: 207–208. · DOI
- Borry P, van Hellemondt RE, Sprumont D, Jales CFD, Rial-Sebbag E, Spranger TM : Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20: 715–721. · DOI
- Brach M : The FDA and me. Nature 2013; 504: 7–8.
- Swan M : DIYgenomics crowdsourced health research studies: personal wellness and preventive medicine through collective intelligence. AAAI Spring Symp – Tech Rep 2012; SS-12-05: 54–59.
- Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM : Letting the genome out of the bottle – will we get our wish? N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 105–107. · DOI
- Yim S-H, Chung Y-J : Reflections on the US FDA’s warning on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genomics Inf 2014; 12: 151–155. · DOI
- Regalado A : How a wiki is keeping direct-to-consumer genetics alive. Technol Rev 2015; 118: 15–18.
- Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW et al: ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013; 15: 565–574. · DOI
- Cariaso M, Lennon G : SNPedia: a wiki supporting personal genome annotation, interpretationand analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2012; 40: 1308–1312. · DOI
- Eng C, Sharp RR : Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence. Sci Transl Med 2010; 2: 17cm5.
- Bunnik EM, Schermer MHN, Janssens ACJW : Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 11. · DOI
- Vayena E : Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy. J Med Ethics 2015; 41: 310–314. · DOI · Paper page
- ACMG Board of Directors: ACMG Statement Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a revised position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016; 18: 207–208. · DOI
- Gurwitz D, Bregman-Eschet Y : Personal genomics services: whose genomes? Eur J Hum Genet 2009; 17: 883–889. · DOI
- Lewis NP, Treise D, Hsu SI, Allen WL, Kang H : DTC genetic testing companies fail transparency prescriptions. New Genet Soc 2011; 30: 291–307. · DOI
- Collier R : Genetic literacy poor in primary care. CMAJ 2012; 184: 467–468. · DOI
- Lachance CR, Erby LAH, Ford BM, Allen VC, Kaphingst KA : Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med 2010; 12: 304–312. · DOI
- Marietta C, Mcguire AL : Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: is it the practice of medicine? J Law Med Ethics 2009; 37: 369–374. · DOI
- Singleton A, Erby LH, Foisie KV, Kaphingst KA : Informed Choice in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing (DTCGT) websites: a content analysis of benefits, risks, and Limitations. J Genet Couns 2012; 21: 433–439. · DOI
- Cornel MC, Van El CG, Borry P : The challenge of implementing genetic tests with clinical utility while avoiding unsound applications. J Community Genet 2014; 5: 7–12. · DOI
- Shabani M, Borry P : Challenges of web-based personal genomic data sharing. Life Sci Soc Policy 2015; 11: 3. · DOI
- Karczewski KJ, Tirrell RP, Cordero P et al: Interpretome: a freely available, modular, and secure personal genome interpretation engine. Pac Symp Biocomput 2012; 339–350. · DOI
- Spector-Bagdady K, Pike E : Consuming genomics: regulating direct-to-consumer genetic and genomic information. Neb Law Rev 2013; 92: 677–745.
- van den Berg S, Shen Y, Jones SJM, Gibson WT : Genetic counseling in direct-to-consumer exome sequencing: a case report. J Genet Couns 2014;: 742–753. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Daly, M. B., Pilarski, R., Yurgelun, M. B. B., Berry, M. P., Buys, S. S., Dickson, P., Domchek, S. M., Elkhanany, A. M., Friedman, S., Garber, J. E., et al. (2020) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020.0017 · Cited by 517
Tandy-Connor, S., Guiltinan, J., Krempely, K., LaDuca, H., Reineke, P., Gutierrez, S., Gray, P., & Tippin Davis, B. (2018) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2018.38 · Cited by 273
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing
Horton, R., Crawford, G., Freeman, L., Fenwick, A., Wright, C. F., & Lucassen, A. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l5688 · Cited by 151
Palk, A. C., Dalvie, S., de Vries, J., Martin, A. R., & Stein, D. J. (2019) · Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13010-019-0073-8 · Cited by 98
Moscarello, T., Murray, B., Reuter, C. M., & Demo, E. (2019) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41436-018-0097-2 · Cited by 76
Sport and exercise genomics: the FIMS 2019 consensus statement update
Tanisawa, K., Wang, G., Seto, J. T., Verdouka, I., Twycross-Lewis, R., Karanikolou, A., Tanaka, M., Börjesson, M., Luigi, L. D., Dohi, M., et al. (2020) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101532 · Cited by 89
“Because the data usage and privacy policy is less prominent in the third-party interpretation services than in DTC genetic testing companies, 101 the risk of data exploitation by someone could be high, as US law enforcement authorities have already exploited it for criminal investigation.”
BackgroundThird-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study of Consumer Motivation and Behavior
Nelson, S. C., Bowen, D. J., & Fullerton, S. M. (2019) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.05.014 · Cited by 56
“This will present challenges for primary care physicians, especially given that TPI reports are typically longer and harder to digest compared to DTC company reports.(15,20,35) Regardless of whether they brought TPI reports to providers, respondents were frequently engaging with health information via TPI (i.”
BackgroundThe challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper
Borry, P., Bentzen, H. B., Budin‐Ljøsne, I., Cornel, M. C., Howard, H. C., Feeney, O., Jackson, L. M., Mascalzoni, D., Mendes, Á., Peterlin, B., et al. (2017) · Journal of Community Genetics · doi:10.1007/s12687-017-0331-7 · Cited by 71
“A number of online interpretation services (such as Promethease, LiveWello, and Interpretome) have also emerged that allow consumers to receive an analysis of their own raw genomic data received from these DTC genetic testing companies (Badalato et al. 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationData Work: Meaning-Making in the Era of Data-Rich Medicine
Fiske, A., Prainsack, B., & Buyx, A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11672 · Cited by 63
“In the past decade, there have been numerous calls for more training in several of the domains mentioned above, such as ethical concerns surrounding the communication of genetic data and related health risks to patients [42], or counseling patients about the advantages and pitfalls of Web-based or commercial sources o…”
APPLaUD: access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data
on behalf of the Participant Values Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Thorogood, A., Bobe, J. R., Prainsack, B., Middleton, A., Scott, E. R., Nelson, S. C., Corpas, M., Bonhomme, N. F., Rodriguez, L. L., et al. (2018) · Human Genomics · doi:10.1186/s40246-018-0139-5 · Cited by 50
“Individuals may be illprepared to keep their own data secure, and third party services may not offer comparable privacy and security protections [44].”
BackgroundFolkersen, L., Pain, O., Ingason, A., Werge, T. M., Lewis, C. M., & Austin, J. (2020) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.00578 · Cited by 66
“The problem is that many popular websites do not communicate high-quality genetic knowledge, in part possibly owing to the lack of engagement by the research communities (Badalato et al., 2017).”
BackgroundWho’s on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services
Guerrini, C. J., Wagner, J. K., Nelson, S., Javitt, G., & McGuire, A. (2019) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41436-019-0627-6 · Cited by 37
Health Information Counselors: A New Profession for the Age of Big Data
Fiske, A., Buyx, A., & Prainsack, B. (2018) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002395 · Cited by 50
“…calls for more training of doctors in the ethical concerns surrounding the communication of genetic data and related health risks to patients, 27 for counseling patients about the advantages and pitfalls of online or commercial sources of health information, 18 for using big data as a…”
BackgroundNelson, S., & Fullerton, S. (2018) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1007/s10897-018-0217-9 · Cited by 33
Seaver, L. H., Khushf, G., King, N. M. P., Matalon, D. R., Sanghavi, K., Vatta, M., & Wees, K. (2021) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.gim.2021.11.002 · Cited by 34
“The raw data set may be requested by the patient and/or provider and may be shared or reanalyzed by a third party at the time of testing or at any point in the future.(13) While Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments– certified clinical testing laboratories are considered covered entities under the Health Insuranc…”
BackgroundEthical challenges of precision cancer medicine
Winkler, E. C., & Knoppers, B. M. (2020) · Seminars in Cancer Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.09.009 · Cited by 33
Genes wide open: Data sharing and the social gradient of genomic privacy
Haeusermann, T., Fadda, M., Blasimme, A., Tzovaras, B. G., & Vayena, E. (2018) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2018.1550123 · Cited by 31
“…others, lack of medical supervision and genetic counseling, inadequate informed consent, questionable analytic and clinical validity, risks of misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis, negative impacts on family members, and on public health (Badalato, Kalokairinou, and Borry 2017; Hogarth and Saukko 2017).”
BackgroundGenetic Privacy and Data Protection: A Review of Chinese Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Services
Du, L.-C., & Wang, M. (2020) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.00416 · Cited by 19
de Roos, B., Aura, A., Bronze, M., Cassidy, A., Conesa, M. G., Gibney, E., Greyling, A., Kaput, J., Kerem, Z., Knežević, N., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-019-02075-5 · Cited by 18
Yin, Z., Song, L., Clayton, E. W., & Malin, B. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238644 · Cited by 25
“Third-party interpretation websites often lack adequate informed consent, have questionable clinical validity and utility, and lack medical supervision [63].”
Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors
Zawatsky, C. L. B., Bick, D. P., Bier, L., Funke, B., Lebo, M. S., Lewis, K. L., Orlova, E., Qian, E., Ryan, L. A., Schwartz, M. L. B., et al. (2023) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1654 · Cited by 19
“EGT may have limited analysis and interpretation, automated interpretation, or may only provide raw data to consumers to explore on their own through various online third- party interpretation tools (Badalato et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019; Nelson & Fullerton, 2018).”
MethodThe Role of Genetic Testing for Parkinson’s Disease
Cook, L., Schulze, J., Naito, A., & Alcalay, R. (2021) · Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports · doi:10.1007/s11910-021-01100-7 · Cited by 17
Crawford, D. C., Bailey, J. N. C., & Briggs, F. B. S. (2019) · Human Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00439-019-02033-5 · Cited by 14
Horne, J. R., Gilliland, J., Madill, J., & Shelley, J. (2020) · Journal of Law and the Biosciences · doi:10.1093/jlb/lsaa003 · Cited by 25
From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing
Savard, J., Hickerton, C., Metcalfe, S., Gaff, C., Middleton, A., & Newson, A. (2019) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2019.1701583 · Cited by 15
“…portals where consumers can upload their raw data from non-health testing for re-interpretation, generating health-related data; this is known as third party interpretation, or TPI (Badalato, Kalokairinou, and Borry 2017; Wang et al. 2018; Metcalfe et al. 2019; Nelson, Bowen, and Fullerton 2019).”
MethodDirect-to-consumer genetic testing with third party interpretation: beware of spurious results.
Horton, R. H., Crawford, G., Freeman, L., Fenwick, A., & Lucassen, A. (2019) · Emerging Topics in Life Sciences · doi:10.1042/etls20190059 · Cited by 15
Raw Genomic Data: Storage, Access, and Sharing.
Shabani, M., Vears, D., & Borry, P. (2018) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2017.10.004 · Cited by 15
Self-citationSchmidt, J., Maas, R., & Altmeyer, S. R. (2019) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1109 · Cited by 14
Impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on Australian clinical genetics services.
Millward, M., Tiller, J., Bogwitz, M., Kincaid, H., Taylor, S., Trainer, A., & Lacaze, P. (2020) · European Journal of Medical Genetics · doi:10.1101/2020.03.05.20031963 · Cited by 13
Policy Guidance for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services: Framework Development Study
Onstwedder, S., Jansen, M., Cornel, M., & Rigter, T. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/47389 · Cited by 9
“This illustrates that DTC-GTs are part of a complex international online market [5,6].”
What Will It Take to Build an Expert Group of Nutrigenomic Practitioners?
Joffe, Y., & Herholdt, H. (2020) · Lifestyle Genomics · doi:10.1159/000507252 · Cited by 9
Kalokairinou, L., Borry, P., & Howard, H. (2020) · Personalized Medicine · doi:10.2217/pme-2019-0064 · Cited by 8
Self-citationFirst Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers
Haga, S. B. (2019) · Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy · doi:10.1007/s40291-019-00407-z · Cited by 9
“Some companies will also make available the raw data in addition to a test report or, alternatively, sequence the DNA and provide only the raw data, leaving the consumer to identify another company to analyze and interpret the raw data [28, 29].”
Ethical Considerations in the Use of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Adopted Persons
May, T., & Fullerton, S. M. (2020) · Adoption Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10926755.2020.1833391 · Cited by 13
WHY WE FEAR GENETIC INFORMANTS: USING GENETIC GENEALOGY TO CATCH SERIAL KILLERS
Brown, T. (2020) · The Columbia science and technology law review · doi:10.7916/stlr.v21i1.5765 · Cited by 7
A game theoretic approach to balance privacy risks and familial benefits
Guo, J., Clayton, E., Kantarcioglu, M., Vorobeychik, Y., Wooders, M., Wan, Z.-Y., Yin, Z.-J., & Malin, B. A. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33177-0 · Cited by 5
Kweon, S., Lee, J. H., Lee, Y., & Park, Y. R. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/18387 · Cited by 5
“We also applied the RNA expression data of the remaining genes (excluding genes on the Y chromosome) using the machine learning algorithms, and the ranges of prediction accuracy and AUROC for gender were 0.91-0.98 and 0.96-0.99, respectively (Multimedia Appendix 4).”
InfluentialKang, O.-J., Lee, S.-W., Kim, J.-H., Park, J., Suh, D., Kim, D., Kim, J.-H., Kim, Y.-M., & Kim, Y.-T. (2023) · International Journal of Gynecological Cancer · doi:10.1136/ijgc-2023-004618 · Cited by 4
Nguyen, T. T. M., Ormond, K. E., Weissman, S. M., Kim, H. J., & Reuter, C. M. (2022) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibac083 · Cited by 3
Nielsen, J. L., Johnston, C., O’Brien, T., & Tyrrell, V. (2022) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja2.51546 · Cited by 4
Genetic counselor approaches to BRCA1/2 direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing results
Burke, S., Mork, M., Qualmann, K. J., Woodson, A., Min, J.-H., Arun, B., & Kaulfus, M. E. (2021) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1380 · Cited by 4
Consumer-initiated Genetic Testing and Pharmacogenomics
Moyer, A., & Baudhuin, L. (2019) · Advances in Molecular Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.yamp.2019.07.009 · Cited by 3
Breast cancer screening for transgender individuals with breast cancer susceptibility genes
Abushalha, K., Ng, A., Pulipati, S., & Bhardwaj, P. V. (2025) · Translational Breast Cancer Research · doi:10.21037/tbcr-24-68 · Cited by 2
Next-generation nephrology: part 2—mainstreaming genomics in nephrology, a global perspective
Gupta, A., Jayasinghe, K., Majmundar, A. J., Mann, N., Sinha, R., Sampson, M. G., & Quinlan, C. (2025) · Pediatric Nephrology · doi:10.1007/s00467-025-06711-7 · Cited by 1
“However, some provide third-party analysis of raw data to derive health information [57].”
An Environmental Scan of Consumer-Initiated Germline Genetic Testing for Health Risks
Kirby, H. G., Rehm, H., & Hull, L. (2023) · Mayo Clinic proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.04.008 · Cited by 2
Meier, L., Tippenhauer, K., & Sariyar, M. (2021) · Medical Informatics Europe · doi:10.3233/shti210344 · Cited by 2
“Prominent examples for third-party services are external clinical decision support systems (CDSS) or interpretation services [2,3].”
BackgroundLinnér, R. K., & Koellinger, P. (2020) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2020.03.30.20047290 · Cited by 2
Ros, T. P., García-Sagredo, J., Pérez-Aytés, A., & de Bustamante, A. D. (2019) · Medicina clínica (Ed. impresa) · doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2019.01.028 · Cited by 1
Implications of secondary findings for clinical contexts
Morrison, M. C., Teare, H., Bertier, G., Buchanan, J. P., Bylstra, Y. M., Gaff, C., Jackson, L. M., Kato, K., Kaufmann, E., Kelly, S., et al. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816549-2.00008-4 · Cited by 4
Nielsen, J., Wakefield, C., McWhirter, R., Johnston, C., Otlowski, M., Tyrrell, V., Cowley, M. J., Tucker, K. M., Lyons, R. J., & Gill, A. (2026) · Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics · doi:10.1017/jme.2026.10267
“34 ,safeguardsandinformation, 35 althoughthisraises resourcing issues for research projects, 36 especially in light of predicted increases in request numbers.”
Current Landscape and Perspectives of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
Yim, J. (2024) · Laboratory Medicine Online · doi:10.47429/lmo.2024.14.3.191
Neue Anwendungen der DNA-Analyse: Chancen und Risiken. Interdisziplinäre Technikfolgenabschätzung
Lang, A., Gschmeidler, B., Gruber, M.-C., Wuketich, M., Kinz, E., Karavas, V., Winkler, F., Schumann, S., Burri, N., & Griessler, E. (2020) · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000452533
“© CC BY 4.0, vdf.ch/neue-anwendungen-der-dna-analyse-chancen-und-risiken-e-book.html 94 Neue Anwendungen der DNA-Analyse: Chancen und Risiken selbst wenn die Unternehmen selbst keine medizinisch-orientierten Analysen der Daten vornehmen16 (Badalato et al., 2017; Smart et al., 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Future of Paediatric Nephrology—Genomics and Personalised Precision Medicine
Quinlan, C. (2020) · Current Pediatrics Reports · doi:10.1007/s40124-020-00218-5
Online Genetics for Health: An Empirical Investigation of How Users Matter
Khan, S. (2020) · uO Research (University of Ottawa) · doi:10.20381/ruor-24409
“A paper on third-party interpretation sites by Badalato, Kalokairinou, and Borry (2017) expresses ethical concerns related to third-party interpretation websites.”
BackgroundInfluentialRos, T. P., García-Sagredo, J., Pérez-Aytés, A., & de Bustamante, A. D. (2019) · Medicina Clínica (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.medcle.2019.06.006
Inclusivity in Medical Education: Teaching Integrative and Alternative Medicine in Kentucky
Blonder, L. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62277-0_12
Misc. medical devices and technologies
Basu, P., Vadlapatla, R., Kumar, P., & Gray, J. P. (2019) · Side effects of drugs annual · doi:10.1016/bs.seda.2019.08.008
Metadata
- Authors
- Badalato, L., Kalokairinou, L., & Borry, P.
- Affiliations
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CA)
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Borry, Pascal
- Venue
- European Journal of Human Genetics
- Published
- 2017-08-23
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1189-1194
- ISSN
- 1018-4813 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5438
- PMC
- PMC5643961
- OpenAlex
- W2747836226
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- European Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Keywords
- direct-to-consumer genetic testing, personal genomics, informed consent, medical supervision, genetic privacy, advertising claims
- MeSH terms
- Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing, Genetic Testing, Humans, Genome-Wide Association Study
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
