AMY MCGUIRE to Humans
This is a "connection" page, showing publications AMY MCGUIRE has written about Humans.
Connection Strength
1.917
-
Reported Safety Practices of Publicly Advertised Psychedelic Retreats. JAMA Netw Open. 2026 Jan 02; 9(1):e2552505.
Score: 0.026
-
Ethical controversies in organ procurement: A national survey on public perceptions of thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion. Am J Transplant. 2026 Apr; 26(4):785-796.
Score: 0.026
-
Health system sustainability and resilience: a preliminary provision of measurement through a "mash-up" index. Health Econ Policy Law. 2025 Jul; 20(3):313-325.
Score: 0.026
-
A landscape analysis of psychedelic retreat organizations advertising online. PLoS One. 2025; 20(5):e0321648.
Score: 0.025
-
Dilemmas in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease: The peril and promise of self-fulfilling prophecies. J Alzheimers Dis. 2025 Jun; 105(3):736-739.
Score: 0.025
-
FIGG at 5: An update on U.S. public perspectives on forensic investigative genetic genealogy five years after its introduction to criminal investigations. Forensic Sci Int. 2025 Feb; 367:112372.
Score: 0.025
-
Investigative genetic genealogy practices warranting policy attention: Results of a modified policy Delphi. PLoS Genet. 2025 Jan; 21(1):e1011520.
Score: 0.025
-
Supportive Touch in Psychedelic Assisted Therapy. Am J Bioeth. 2025 Jan; 25(1):29-39.
Score: 0.025
-
Large-scale genotype prediction from RNA sequence data necessitates a new ethical and policy framework. Nat Genet. 2024 Aug; 56(8):1537-1540.
Score: 0.024
-
Measurement of?energy availability in highly trained male endurance athletes and examination of its associations with bone health and endocrine function. Eur J Nutr. 2024 Oct; 63(7):2655-2665.
Score: 0.024
-
Developing an Ethics and Policy Framework for Psychedelic Clinical Care: A Consensus Statement. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 06 03; 7(6):e2414650.
Score: 0.024
-
IGG in the trenches: Results of an in-depth interview study on the practice, politics, and future of investigative genetic genealogy. Forensic Sci Int. 2024 Mar; 356:111946.
Score: 0.023
-
Bio-Psycho-Spiritual Perspectives on Psychedelics: Clinical and Ethical Implications. Perspect Biol Med. 2024; 67(1):117-142.
Score: 0.023
-
Are Psychedelic Experiences Transformative? Can We Consent to Them? Perspect Biol Med. 2024; 67(1):143-154.
Score: 0.023
-
Integrating Social Determinants of Health into Ethical Digital Simulations. Am J Bioeth. 2023 09; 23(9):57-60.
Score: 0.022
-
Ethics Education for Healthcare Professionals in the Era of ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models: Do We Still Need It? Am J Bioeth. 2023 Oct; 23(10):17-27.
Score: 0.022
-
Pressing regulatory challenges for psychedelic medicine. Science. 2023 04 28; 380(6643):347-350.
Score: 0.022
-
Prevalence of low energy availability and associations with seasonal changes in salivary hormones and IgA in elite male Gaelic footballers. Eur J Nutr. 2023 Jun; 62(4):1809-1820.
Score: 0.022
-
Increasing physician participation as subjects in scientific and quality improvement research. BMC Med Ethics. 2022 08 13; 23(1):81.
Score: 0.021
-
Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services. Am J Hum Genet. 2022 03 03; 109(3):486-497.
Score: 0.020
-
Energy availability and macronutrient intake in elite male Gaelic football players. Sci Med Footb. 2023 02; 7(1):1-7.
Score: 0.020
-
How NFTs could transform health information exchange. Science. 2022 02 04; 375(6580):500-502.
Score: 0.020
-
Should Pediatricians Dismiss Families Who Refuse a COVID-19 Vaccine? Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2022 02; 61(2):99-103.
Score: 0.020
-
Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing: Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development. Patient. 2022 05; 15(3):317-328.
Score: 0.020
-
Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertisement and Prescribing Practices: Evidence Review and Practical Guidance for Clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 05; 36(5):1390-1394.
Score: 0.018
-
The road ahead in genetics and genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2020 10; 21(10):581-596.
Score: 0.018
-
Airmen and health-care providers' attitudes toward the use of genomic sequencing in the US Air Force: findings from the MilSeq Project. Genet Med. 2020 12; 22(12):2003-2010.
Score: 0.018
-
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Value and Risk. Annu Rev Med. 2021 01 27; 72:151-166.
Score: 0.018
-
Ethical Challenges Arising in the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) Task Force. Am J Bioeth. 2020 07; 20(7):15-27.
Score: 0.018
-
Physician Involvement in Promoting Gun Safety. Ann Fam Med. 2020 05; 18(3):262-264.
Score: 0.018
-
Data Sharing in the Context of Health-Related Citizen Science. J Law Med Ethics. 2020 03; 48(1_suppl):167-177.
Score: 0.018
-
A Right to Privacy and Confidentiality: Ethical Medical Care for Patients in United States Immigration Detention. J Law Med Ethics. 2020 03; 48(1):161-168.
Score: 0.018
-
Essential, not peripheral: Addressing health care workers' mental health concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Occup Health. 2020 Jan; 62(1):e12169.
Score: 0.017
-
Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Med Ethics. 2019 11 21; 20(1):84.
Score: 0.017
-
Learning Health System - Moving from Ethical Frameworks to Practical Implementation. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 09; 47(3):454-458.
Score: 0.017
-
Who's on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services. Genet Med. 2020 01; 22(1):4-11.
Score: 0.017
-
Clarify the HIPAA right of access to individuals' research data. Nat Biotechnol. 2019 08; 37(8):850-852.
Score: 0.017
-
Biomedical Citizen Science or Something Else? Reflections on Terms and Definitions. Am J Bioeth. 2019 Aug; 19(8):17-19.
Score: 0.017
-
Responsibility, culpability, and parental views on genomic testing for seriously ill children. Genet Med. 2019 12; 21(12):2791-2797.
Score: 0.017
-
Introduction: Sharing Data in a Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):7-11.
Score: 0.016
-
Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):12-20.
Score: 0.016
-
Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):70-87.
Score: 0.016
-
Who Owns the Data in a Medical Information Commons? J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):62-69.
Score: 0.016
-
Agents of empathy: How medical interpreters bridge sociocultural gaps in genomic sequencing disclosures with Spanish-speaking families. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 05; 102(5):895-901.
Score: 0.016
-
Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique. PLoS Biol. 2018 10; 16(10):e2006906.
Score: 0.016
-
Genealogy databases and the future of criminal investigation. Science. 2018 06 08; 360(6393):1078-1079.
Score: 0.016
-
HEADS4: Social Media Screening in Adolescent Primary Care. Pediatrics. 2018 06; 141(6).
Score: 0.015
-
Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons? Genome Med. 2017 09 22; 9(1):84.
Score: 0.015
-
Sharing data under the 21st Century Cures Act. Genet Med. 2017 12; 19(12):1289-1294.
Score: 0.014
-
Moving beyond Bermuda: sharing data to build a medical information commons. Genome Res. 2017 06; 27(6):897-901.
Score: 0.014
-
When bins blur: Patient perspectives on categories of results from clinical whole genome sequencing. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017 Apr-Jun; 8(2):82-88.
Score: 0.014
-
Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing. PLoS Biol. 2016 Nov; 14(11):e2000206.
Score: 0.014
-
The ethics of conducting molecular autopsies in cases of sudden death in the young. Genome Res. 2016 09; 26(9):1165-9.
Score: 0.014
-
Return of individual genomic research results: what do consent forms tell participants? Eur J Hum Genet. 2016 11; 24(11):1524-1529.
Score: 0.014
-
Ethical and Legal Challenges Associated with Public Molecular Autopsies. J Law Med Ethics. 2016 06; 44(2):309-18.
Score: 0.014
-
Persistent confusion and controversy surrounding gene patents. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Feb; 34(2):145-7.
Score: 0.013
-
Potential Psychosocial Risks of Sequencing Newborns. Pediatrics. 2016 Jan; 137 Suppl 1:S24-9.
Score: 0.013
-
Cultivating Administrative Support for a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service. J Clin Ethics. 2016; 27(4):341-351.
Score: 0.013
-
GINA, genetic discrimination, and genomic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 29; 372(5):397-9.
Score: 0.012
-
Overcoming the reimbursement barriers for clinical sequencing. JAMA. 2014 Nov 12; 312(18):1857-8.
Score: 0.012
-
Responding to moderate breaches in professionalism: an intervention for medical students. Med Teach. 2015 Feb; 37(2):136-9.
Score: 0.012
-
Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: a policy analysis. J Law Med Ethics. 2014; 42 Suppl 1:5-8.
Score: 0.011
-
Adult genetic risk screening. Annu Rev Med. 2014; 65:1-17.
Score: 0.011
-
Participants' recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013 Oct; 8(4):42-52.
Score: 0.011
-
Policy uncertainty, sequencing, and cell lines. G3 (Bethesda). 2013 Aug 07; 3(8):1205-7.
Score: 0.011
-
Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science. 2013 May 31; 340(6136):1047-8.
Score: 0.011
-
Investigators' perspectives on translating human microbiome research into clinical practice. Public Health Genomics. 2013; 16(3):127-33.
Score: 0.011
-
The indispensable role of professional judgment in genomic medicine. JAMA. 2013 Apr 10; 309(14):1465-6.
Score: 0.011
-
Research results: preserving newborn blood samples. Sci Transl Med. 2012 Nov 07; 4(159):159cm12.
Score: 0.011
-
"Snake-oil," "quack medicine," and "industrially cultured organisms:" biovalue and the commercialization of human microbiome research. BMC Med Ethics. 2012 Oct 30; 13:28.
Score: 0.011
-
Athletes' use of unproven stem cell therapies: adding to inappropriate media hype? Mol Ther. 2012 Sep; 20(9):1656-1658.
Score: 0.010
-
The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med. 2012 Apr; 14(4):473-7.
Score: 0.010
-
Currents in contemporary bioethics. Identifying consanguinity through routine genomic analysis: reporting requirements. J Law Med Ethics. 2012; 40(4):1040-6.
Score: 0.010
-
Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives. Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15(2):106-14.
Score: 0.010
-
To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet Med. 2011 Nov; 13(11):948-55.
Score: 0.010
-
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med. 2012; 63:23-33.
Score: 0.010
-
Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. Genome Res. 2011 Jul; 21(7):1001-7.
Score: 0.010
-
Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Public Health Genomics. 2011; 14(1):53-8.
Score: 0.009
-
Science and regulation. Regulating direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Science. 2010 Oct 08; 330(6001):181-2.
Score: 0.009
-
The right to ignore genetic status of late onset genetic disease in the genomic era; Prenatal testing for Huntington disease as a paradigm. Am J Med Genet A. 2010 Jul; 152A(7):1774-80.
Score: 0.009
-
Personal genome research : what should the participant be told? Trends Genet. 2010 May; 26(5):199-201.
Score: 0.009
-
Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010; 11:361-81.
Score: 0.009
-
The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genet Med. 2009 Oct; 11(10):712-5.
Score: 0.009
-
Currents in contemporary ethics. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: is it the practice of medicine? J Law Med Ethics. 2009; 37(2):369-74.
Score: 0.008
-
Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth. 2009; 9(6-7):3-10.
Score: 0.008
-
Please don't call my mom: pediatric consent and confidentiality. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2009 Apr; 48(3):243-6.
Score: 0.008
-
An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA. 2008 Dec 10; 300(22):2669-71.
Score: 0.008
-
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: enabling a bottom-up approach in genome-wide association studies. Genome Res. 2008 Nov; 18(11):1683-5.
Score: 0.008
-
Ethical, legal, and social considerations in conducting the Human Microbiome Project. Genome Res. 2008 Dec; 18(12):1861-4.
Score: 0.008
-
Identifiability of DNA data: the need for consistent federal policy. Am J Bioeth. 2008 Oct; 8(10):75-6.
Score: 0.008
-
Confidentiality, privacy, and security of genetic and genomic test information in electronic health records: points to consider. Genet Med. 2008 Jul; 10(7):495-9.
Score: 0.008
-
Beyond shared decision making: an expanded typology of medical decisions. Med Decis Making. 2008 Sep-Oct; 28(5):699-705.
Score: 0.008
-
Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet. 2008 02; 9(2):152-6.
Score: 0.008
-
Medicine. The future of personal genomics. Science. 2007 Sep 21; 317(5845):1687.
Score: 0.007
-
Genetics. No longer de-identified. Science. 2006 Apr 21; 312(5772):370-1.
Score: 0.007
-
Meeting the growing demands of genetic research. J Law Med Ethics. 2006; 34(4):809-12.
Score: 0.007
-
"Holy Cow, Where do I Sign up?" Attitudes of Military Veterans Toward Epigenomic Biomarker Toxic Exposure Testing. Mil Med. 2025 Jun 30; 190(7-8):e1663-e1669.
Score: 0.006
-
Missed expectations? Physicians' views of patients' participation in medical decision-making. Med Care. 2005 May; 43(5):466-70.
Score: 0.006
-
Respect as an organizing normative category for research ethics. Am J Bioeth. 2005; 5(1):W1-2.
Score: 0.006
-
The ethics of lawyer-ethicists. J Law Med Ethics. 2005; 33(3):603-7.
Score: 0.006
-
The BRAIN Initiative data-sharing ecosystem: Characteristics, challenges, benefits, and opportunities. Elife. 2024 Nov 27; 13.
Score: 0.006
-
"A Double-Edged Sword": A Brief History of Genomic Data Governance and Genetic Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing. J Law Med Ethics. 2024; 52(2):399-411.
Score: 0.006
-
The BabySeq Project: A clinical trial of genome sequencing in a diverse cohort of infants. Am J Hum Genet. 2024 Oct 03; 111(10):2094-2106.
Score: 0.006
-
Comparing the Diagnostic Yield of Germline Exome Versus Panel Sequencing in the Diverse Population of the Texas KidsCanSeq Pediatric Cancer Study. JCO Precis Oncol. 2024 Sep; 8:e2400187.
Score: 0.006
-
Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for adult screening. Genet Med. 2024 Nov; 26(11):101240.
Score: 0.006
-
"The truth should not be hidden": Experiences and recommendations of individuals making NPE discoveries through genetic genealogy databases. Genet Med. 2024 Oct; 26(10):101210.
Score: 0.006
-
What happens when the tasks dry up? Exploring the impact of medical technology on workforce planning. Soc Sci Med. 2024 07; 352:117014.
Score: 0.006
-
Genomic sequencing research in pediatric cancer care: Decision making, attitudes, and perceived utility among adolescents and young adults and their parents. Genet Med. 2024 Aug; 26(8):101168.
Score: 0.006
-
Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of?the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for pediatric diagnostic testing. Genet Med. 2024 Aug; 26(8):101146.
Score: 0.006
-
Genetic Researchers' Use of and Interest in Research With Diverse Ancestral Groups. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 04 01; 7(4):e246805.
Score: 0.006
-
Families' experiences accessing care after genomic sequencing in the pediatric cancer context: "It's just been a big juggle". J Genet Couns. 2024 12; 33(6):1337-1350.
Score: 0.006
-
Research Participants' Perspectives on Precision Diagnostics for Alzheimer's Disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2024; 97(3):1261-1274.
Score: 0.006
-
Benefits of sharing neurophysiology data from the BRAIN Initiative Research Opportunities in Humans Consortium. Neuron. 2023 12 06; 111(23):3710-3715.
Score: 0.006
-
Ethically cleared to launch? Science. 2023 09 29; 381(6665):1408-1411.
Score: 0.006
-
Participant perceptions of changes in psychosocial domains following participation in an adaptive deep brain stimulation trial. Brain Stimul. 2023 Jul-Aug; 16(4):990-998.
Score: 0.006
-
Actionability of unanticipated monogenic disease risks in newborn genomic screening: Findings from the BabySeq Project. Am J Hum Genet. 2023 07 06; 110(7):1034-1045.
Score: 0.006
-
Views of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Oncologists Toward Patients' Participation in Genomic Research. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2023 10; 12(5):773-781.
Score: 0.005
-
Parents' decision-making regarding whether to receive adult-onset only genetic findings for their children: Findings from the BabySeq Project. Genet Med. 2023 03; 25(3):100002.
Score: 0.005
-
Key drivers of family-level utility of pediatric genomic sequencing: a qualitative analysis to support preference research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023 04; 31(4):445-452.
Score: 0.005
-
"Extremely slow and capricious": A qualitative exploration of genetic researcher priorities in selecting shared data resources. Genet Med. 2023 01; 25(1):115-124.
Score: 0.005
-
Deciding with Others: Interdependent Decision-Making. Hastings Cent Rep. 2022 11; 52(6):23-32.
Score: 0.005
-
Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Precision Cardiology Care: Findings From the HeartCare Study. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2022 12; 15(6):e003605.
Score: 0.005
-
Toward Meeting the Obligation of Respect for Persons in Pragmatic Clinical Trials. Hastings Cent Rep. 2022 05; 52(3):9-17.
Score: 0.005
-
Clearing the mist. Am J Bioeth. 2002; 2(4):W7.
Score: 0.005
-
Psychosocial Effect of Newborn Genomic Sequencing on Families in the BabySeq Project: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2021 11 01; 175(11):1132-1141.
Score: 0.005
-
Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research. Am J Hum Genet. 2021 11 04; 108(11):2027-2036.
Score: 0.005
-
Genetic testing in ambulatory cardiology clinics reveals high rate of findings with clinical management implications. Genet Med. 2021 12; 23(12):2404-2414.
Score: 0.005
-
Effects of participation in a U.S. trial of newborn genomic sequencing on parents at risk for depression. J Genet Couns. 2022 02; 31(1):218-229.
Score: 0.005
-
Hospital-Based Education for Hospitalized Children: Current Practice and Future Direction. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 05; 11(5):e75-e77.
Score: 0.005
-
Family-level impact of genetic testing: integrating health economics and ethical, legal, and social implications. Per Med. 2021 05; 18(3):209-212.
Score: 0.005
-
Toward better governance of human genomic data. Nat Genet. 2021 01; 53(1):2-8.
Score: 0.005
-
Comparing the efficacy and tolerability of biologic therapies in psoriasis: an updated network meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. 2020 10; 183(4):638-649.
Score: 0.005
-
British Association of Dermatologists guidelines for biologic therapy for psoriasis 2020: a rapid update. Br J Dermatol. 2020 10; 183(4):628-637.
Score: 0.005
-
Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. Ann Intern Med. 2020 08 04; 173(3):188-194.
Score: 0.004
-
Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics. J Law Med Ethics. 2020 03; 48(1):69-86.
Score: 0.004
-
The case for implementing sustainable routine, population-level genomic reanalysis. Genet Med. 2020 04; 22(4):815-816.
Score: 0.004
-
Device Removal Following Brain Implant Research. Neuron. 2019 09 04; 103(5):759-761.
Score: 0.004
-
Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies. Genet Med. 2019 12; 21(12):2781-2790.
Score: 0.004
-
Improving recommendations for genomic medicine: building an evolutionary process from clinical practice advisory documents to guidelines. Genet Med. 2019 11; 21(11):2431-2438.
Score: 0.004
-
In support of mitochondrial replacement therapy. Nat Med. 2019 06; 25(6):870-871.
Score: 0.004
-
The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research. Am J Hum Genet. 2019 06 06; 104(6):1088-1096.
Score: 0.004
-
Genomic Data-Sharing Practices. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):31-40.
Score: 0.004
-
What is a Medical Information Commons? J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):41-50.
Score: 0.004
-
Characterizing the Biomedical Data-Sharing Landscape. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):21-30.
Score: 0.004
-
Predispositional genome sequencing in healthy adults: design, participant characteristics, and early outcomes of the PeopleSeq Consortium. Genome Med. 2019 02 27; 11(1):10.
Score: 0.004
-
Interpretation of Genomic Sequencing Results in Healthy and Ill Newborns: Results from the BabySeq Project. Am J Hum Genet. 2019 01 03; 104(1):76-93.
Score: 0.004
-
Perceived Benefits, Risks, and Utility of Newborn Genomic Sequencing in the BabySeq Project. Pediatrics. 2019 01; 143(Suppl 1):S6-S13.
Score: 0.004
-
Challenging the Current Recommendations for Carrier Testing in Children. Pediatrics. 2019 01; 143(Suppl 1):S27-S32.
Score: 0.004
-
Returning a Genomic Result for an Adult-Onset Condition to the Parents of a Newborn: Insights From the BabySeq Project. Pediatrics. 2019 01; 143(Suppl 1):S37-S43.
Score: 0.004
-
Genetic Basis for Congenital Heart Disease: Revisited: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018 11 20; 138(21):e653-e711.
Score: 0.004
-
Exome sequencing disclosures in pediatric cancer care: Patterns of communication among oncologists, genetic counselors, and parents. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 04; 102(4):680-686.
Score: 0.004
-
Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study. Genet Med. 2019 05; 21(5):1100-1110.
Score: 0.004
-
Parental interest in genomic sequencing of newborns: enrollment experience from the BabySeq Project. Genet Med. 2019 03; 21(3):622-630.
Score: 0.004
-
The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations. Am J Hum Genet. 2018 09 06; 103(3):319-327.
Score: 0.004
-
Reconciling newborn screening and a novel splice variant in BTD associated with partial biotinidase deficiency: a BabySeq Project case report. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2018 08; 4(4).
Score: 0.004
-
The BabySeq project: implementing genomic sequencing in newborns. BMC Pediatr. 2018 07 09; 18(1):225.
Score: 0.004
-
Continued access to investigational brain implants. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2018 06; 19(6):317-318.
Score: 0.004
-
The phenotypic spectrum of Xia-Gibbs syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2018 06; 176(6):1315-1326.
Score: 0.004
-
Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial. Genet Med. 2018 12; 20(12):1544-1553.
Score: 0.004
-
How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 06; 33(6):877-885.
Score: 0.004
-
Patient understanding of, satisfaction with, and perceived utility of whole-genome sequencing: findings from the MedSeq Project. Genet Med. 2018 09; 20(9):1069-1076.
Score: 0.004
-
Portero versus portador: Spanish interpretation of genomic terminology during whole exome sequencing results disclosure. Per Med. 2017 11; 14(6):503-514.
Score: 0.004
-
Do privacy and security regulations need a status update? Perspectives from an intergenerational survey. PLoS One. 2017; 12(9):e0184525.
Score: 0.004
-
Navigating the research-clinical interface in genomic medicine: analysis from the CSER Consortium. Genet Med. 2018 04; 20(5):545-553.
Score: 0.004
-
The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Primary Care and Outcomes of Healthy Adult Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017 08 01; 167(3):159-169.
Score: 0.004
-
Consumer Perspectives on Access to Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience. Milbank Q. 2017 06; 95(2):291-318.
Score: 0.004
-
Myriad take two: Can genomic databases remain secret? Science. 2017 05 12; 356(6338):586-587.
Score: 0.004
-
Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health. Pediatrics. 2017 Feb; 139(2).
Score: 0.004
-
A curated gene list for reporting results of newborn genomic sequencing. Genet Med. 2017 07; 19(7):809-818.
Score: 0.004
-
A Conceptual Model for the Translation of Bioethics Research and Scholarship. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 09; 46(5):34-9.
Score: 0.003
-
Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine. Am J Hum Genet. 2016 06 02; 98(6):1051-1066.
Score: 0.003
-
Community crystal gazing. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Mar; 34(3):276-83.
Score: 0.003
-
Participants and Study Decliners' Perspectives About the Risks of Participating in a Clinical Trial of Whole Genome Sequencing. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016 02; 11(1):21-30.
Score: 0.003
-
An open access pilot freely sharing cancer genomic data from participants in Texas. Sci Data. 2016 Feb 16; 3:160010.
Score: 0.003
-
Legal Barriers to Adolescent Participation in Research About HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections. Am J Public Health. 2016 Jan; 106(1):40-4.
Score: 0.003
-
Is Whole-Exome Sequencing an Ethically Disruptive Technology? Perspectives of Pediatric Oncologists and Parents of Pediatric Patients With Solid Tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016 Mar; 63(3):511-5.
Score: 0.003
-
Pregnant patients' risk perception of prenatal test results with uncertain fetal clinical significance: ultrasound versus advanced genetic testing. Prenat Diagn. 2015 Dec; 35(12):1213-7.
Score: 0.003
-
Are physicians prepared for whole genome sequencing? a qualitative analysis. Clin Genet. 2016 Feb; 89(2):228-34.
Score: 0.003
-
A one-page summary report of genome sequencing for the healthy adult. Public Health Genomics. 2015; 18(2):123-9.
Score: 0.003
-
Pediatric Cancer Genetics Research and an Evolving Preventive Ethics Approach for Return of Results after Death of the Subject. J Law Med Ethics. 2015; 43(3):529-37.
Score: 0.003
-
Why information alone is not enough: behavioral economics and the future of genomic medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Oct 21; 161(8):605-6.
Score: 0.003
-
Development of the clinical next-generation sequencing industry in a shifting policy climate. Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Oct; 32(10):980-2.
Score: 0.003
-
Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care? Prenat Diagn. 2014 Oct; 34(10):921-6.
Score: 0.003
-
The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine. Trials. 2014 Mar 20; 15:85.
Score: 0.003
-
Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group. Genet Med. 2014 Oct; 16(10):727-35.
Score: 0.003
-
Pediatric data sharing in genomic research: attitudes and preferences of parents. Pediatrics. 2014 Apr; 133(4):690-7.
Score: 0.003
-
Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board. Genet Med. 2014 Jul; 16(7):547-52.
Score: 0.003
-
Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate. PLoS Biol. 2013 Nov; 11(11):e1001699.
Score: 0.003
-
Personalized genomic disease risk of volunteers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Oct 15; 110(42):16957-62.
Score: 0.003
-
ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013 Jul; 15(7):565-74.
Score: 0.003
-
Experiences and attitudes of genome investigators regarding return of individual genetic test results. Genet Med. 2013 Nov; 15(11):882-7.
Score: 0.003
-
Return of research results from genomic biobanks: a call for data. Genet Med. 2013 Feb; 15(2):159-60.
Score: 0.003
-
Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science. 2013 Jan 18; 339(6117):321-4.
Score: 0.003
-
Return of research results from genomic biobanks: cost matters. Genet Med. 2013 Feb; 15(2):103-5.
Score: 0.003
-
The Human Microbiome Project: a community resource for the healthy human microbiome. PLoS Biol. 2012; 10(8):e1001377.
Score: 0.003
-
Incidental copy-number variants identified by routine genome testing in a clinical population. Genet Med. 2013 Jan; 15(1):45-54.
Score: 0.003
-
Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med. 2012 Apr; 14(4):405-10.
Score: 0.003
-
Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Genet Med. 2012 Apr; 14(4):424-31.
Score: 0.003
-
Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genome Res. 2012 Mar; 22(3):421-8.
Score: 0.002
-
Informed consent in research to improve the number and quality of deceased donor organs. Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb; 39(2):280-3.
Score: 0.002
-
Shaping patients' decisions. Chest. 2011 Feb; 139(2):424-429.
Score: 0.002
-
Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2010 Dec; 3(6):574-80.
Score: 0.002
-
Confronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium. Genet Med. 2010 Oct; 12(10):616-20.
Score: 0.002
-
Beneficent persuasion: techniques and ethical guidelines to improve patients' decisions. Ann Fam Med. 2010 May-Jun; 8(3):260-4.
Score: 0.002
-
Whole-genome sequencing in a patient with Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy. N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 01; 362(13):1181-91.
Score: 0.002
-
Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat Rev Genet. 2010 02; 11(2):161-5.
Score: 0.002
-
Developing a tissue resource to characterize the genome of pancreatic cancer. World J Surg. 2009 Apr; 33(4):723-31.
Score: 0.002
-
Beyond breaking bad news: the roles of hope and hopefulness. Cancer. 2008 Jul 15; 113(2):442-5.
Score: 0.002
-
The complete genome of an individual by massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nature. 2008 Apr 17; 452(7189):872-6.
Score: 0.002
-
Principal investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008 Apr 02; 5(2):68-72.
Score: 0.002
-
Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol. 2008 Mar 25; 6(3):e73.
Score: 0.002
-
Consent: informed, simple, implied and presumed. Am J Bioeth. 2007 Dec; 7(12):49-50; discussion W3-4.
Score: 0.002
-
A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Jan 06; 140(1):54-9.
Score: 0.001
-
Overview of the arthritis Cost Consequence Evaluation System (ACCES): a pharmacoeconomic model for celecoxib. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000 Dec; 39 Suppl 2:33-42; discussion 57-9.
Score: 0.001