The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants
Abstract
Investigators and institutional review boards should integrate plans about the appropriate disclosure of individual genetic results when designing research studies. The ethical principles of beneficence, respect, reciprocity, and justice provide justification for routinely offering certain results to research participants. We propose a result-evaluation approach that assesses the expected information and the context of the study in order to decide whether results should be offered. According to this approach, the analytic validity and the clinical utility of a specific result determine whether it should be offered routinely. Different results may therefore require different decisions even within the same study. We argue that the threshold of clinical utility for disclosing a result in a research study should be lower than the threshold used for clinical use of the same result. The personal meaning of a result provides additional criteria for evaluation. Finally, the context of the study allows for a more nuanced analysis by addressing the investigators' capabilities for appropriate disclosure, participants' alternative access to the result, and their relationship with the investigators. This analysis shows that the same result may require different decisions in different contexts.
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.
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
Vitamin E and Donepezil for the Treatment of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Petersen, R. C., Thomas, R. G., Grundman, M., Bennett, D., Doody, R., Ferris, S., Galasko, D., Jin, S., Kaye, J., Levey, A., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa050151 · Cited by 1,844
A vision for the future of genomics research
Collins, F. S., Green, E. D., Guttmacher, A. E., Guyer, M. S., & on behalf of the US National Human Genome Research Institute (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01626 · Cited by 1,752
A comprehensive review of genetic association studies
Hirschhorn, J. N., Lohmueller, K., Byrne, E., & Hirschhorn, K. (2002) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/00125817-200203000-00002 · Cited by 1,674
Disclosing Individual Results of Clinical Research: Implications of Respect for Participants
Shalowitz, D. I., & Miller, F. G. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.737 · Cited by 265
Richardson, H. S., & Belsky, L. (2004) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.2307/3528248 · Cited by 217
Cited by
Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations
Wolf, S. M., Lawrenz, F. P., Nelson, C. A., Kahn, J. P., Cho, M. K., Clayton, E. W., Fletcher, J. G., Georgieff, M. K., Hammerschmidt, D., Hudson, K., et al. (2008) · Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics · doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2008.00266.x · Cited by 706
Self-citationPublic Expectations for Return of Results from Large-Cohort Genetic Research
Murphy, J., Scott, J., Kaufman, D., Geller, G., LeRoy, L., & Hudson, K. (2008) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265160802513093 · Cited by 278
Donors Perceptions of Consent to and Feedback from Biobank Research: Time to Acknowledge Diversity?
Hoeyer, K. (2010) · Public Health Genomics · doi:10.1159/000262329 · Cited by 77
Virani, A. H., & Longstaff, H. (2015) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1007/s10897-014-9781-9 · Cited by 28
Hyams, T., Bowen, D. J., Condit, C., Grossman, J., Fitzmaurice, M., Goodman, D., Wenzel, L., & Edwards, K. L. (2016) · Public Health Genomics · doi:10.1159/000448277 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Ravitsky, V., & Wilfond, B. S.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Bioethics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 8-17
- ISSN
- 1526-5161 (ISSN-L)
- 1536-0075
- OpenAlex
- W2109100666
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 18.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15265160600934772
- The paper
- Ravitsky, V., & Wilfond, B. S. (2006). Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants. The American Journal of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160600934772
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.