Co-Authors
This is a "connection" page, showing publications co-authored by AMY MCGUIRE and MARY MAJUMDER.
Connection Strength
8.930
-
Large-scale genotype prediction from RNA sequence data necessitates a new ethical and policy framework. Nat Genet. 2024 Aug; 56(8):1537-1540.
Score: 0.920
-
Challenges to Building a Gene Variant Commons to Assess Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of a Modified Policy Delphi Panel Deliberation. J Pers Med. 2021 Jul 08; 11(7).
Score: 0.744
-
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Value and Risk. Annu Rev Med. 2021 01 27; 72:151-166.
Score: 0.697
-
Data Sharing in the Context of Health-Related Citizen Science. J Law Med Ethics. 2020 03; 48(1_suppl):167-177.
Score: 0.677
-
Sharing data under the 21st Century Cures Act. Genet Med. 2017 12; 19(12):1289-1294.
Score: 0.559
-
Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing. PLoS Biol. 2016 Nov; 14(11):e2000206.
Score: 0.538
-
Two cheers for GINA? Genome Med. 2009 Jan 20; 1(1):6.
Score: 0.314
-
Privacy in perspective: research participants' priorities and concerns related to sharing data generated in human neuroscience studies. Neuroethics. 2025 Aug; 18(2).
Score: 0.247
-
The BRAIN Initiative data-sharing ecosystem: Characteristics, challenges, benefits, and opportunities. Elife. 2024 Nov 27; 13.
Score: 0.235
-
Policy options to facilitate cancer genomic variant data sharing: outcomes of a modified policy Delphi. J Law Biosci. 2023 Jul-Dec; 10(2):lsad022.
Score: 0.214
-
Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. Front Big Data. 2023; 6:1095119.
Score: 0.207
-
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: 0.194
-
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: 0.175
-
Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Med Ethics. 2019 11 21; 20(1):84.
Score: 0.166
-
Learning Health System - Moving from Ethical Frameworks to Practical Implementation. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 09; 47(3):454-458.
Score: 0.164
-
Introduction: Sharing Data in a Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):7-11.
Score: 0.158
-
Genomic Data-Sharing Practices. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):31-40.
Score: 0.158
-
Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):12-20.
Score: 0.158
-
Characterizing the Biomedical Data-Sharing Landscape. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):21-30.
Score: 0.158
-
Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):70-87.
Score: 0.158
-
Citizen science, public policy. Science. 2018 07 13; 361(6398):134-136.
Score: 0.151
-
Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons? Genome Med. 2017 09 22; 9(1):84.
Score: 0.143
-
Barriers to clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing: a policy Delphi panel's solutions. Per Med. 2017; 14(4):339-354.
Score: 0.141
-
Myriad take two: Can genomic databases remain secret? Science. 2017 05 12; 356(6338):586-587.
Score: 0.139
-
The ethics of conducting molecular autopsies in cases of sudden death in the young. Genome Res. 2016 09; 26(9):1165-9.
Score: 0.132
-
Ethical and Legal Challenges Associated with Public Molecular Autopsies. J Law Med Ethics. 2016 06; 44(2):309-18.
Score: 0.131
-
Barriers to clinical adoption of next generation sequencing: Perspectives of a policy Delphi panel. Appl Transl Genom. 2016 Sep; 10:19-24.
Score: 0.130
-
Developing context-specific next-generation sequencing policy. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 05 06; 34(5):466-70.
Score: 0.130
-
Persistent confusion and controversy surrounding gene patents. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Feb; 34(2):145-7.
Score: 0.128
-
Cultivating Administrative Support for a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service. J Clin Ethics. 2016; 27(4):341-351.
Score: 0.127
-
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: 0.126
-
Taking DNA from the dead. Nat Rev Genet. 2010 May; 11(5):318.
Score: 0.085
-
When families bridge the research-clinical divide: An exploration of values regarding cascade screening in genomic research. Genet Med Open. 2025; 3:103440.
Score: 0.061
-
The ethics of lawyer-ethicists. J Law Med Ethics. 2005; 33(3):603-7.
Score: 0.059
-
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: 0.057
-
Families' experiences accessing care after genomic sequencing in the pediatric cancer context: "It's just been a big juggle". J Genet Couns. 2024 Dec; 33(6):1337-1350.
Score: 0.055
-
Benefits of sharing neurophysiology data from the BRAIN Initiative Research Opportunities in Humans Consortium. Neuron. 2023 12 06; 111(23):3710-3715.
Score: 0.055
-
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: 0.052
-
Neuroethics at 15: Keep the Kant but Add More Bacon. AJOB Neurosci. 2019 Jul-Sep; 10(3):97-100.
Score: 0.040
-
What is a Medical Information Commons? J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):41-50.
Score: 0.039
-
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: 0.039
-
Constraints on gene patent protection fuel secrecy concerns: a qualitative study. J Law Biosci. 2017 Dec; 4(3):542-564.
Score: 0.036
-
Do privacy and security regulations need a status update? Perspectives from an intergenerational survey. PLoS One. 2017; 12(9):e0184525.
Score: 0.036