Connection

Co-Authors

This is a "connection" page, showing publications co-authored by AMY MCGUIRE and MARY MAJUMDER.
Connection Strength

8.217
  1. 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).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.825
  2. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Value and Risk. Annu Rev Med. 2021 01 27; 72:151-166.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.773
  3. Data Sharing in the Context of Health-Related Citizen Science. J Law Med Ethics. 2020 03; 48(1_suppl):167-177.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.751
  4. Sharing data under the 21st Century Cures Act. Genet Med. 2017 12; 19(12):1289-1294.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.620
  5. Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing. PLoS Biol. 2016 Nov; 14(11):e2000206.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.596
  6. Two cheers for GINA? Genome Med. 2009 Jan 20; 1(1):6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.348
  7. Policy options to facilitate cancer genomic variant data sharing: outcomes of a modified policy Delphi. J Law Biosci. 2023 Jul-Dec; 10(2):lsad022.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.237
  8. Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. Front Big Data. 2023; 6:1095119.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.230
  9. 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.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.215
  10. 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.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.194
  11. Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Med Ethics. 2019 11 21; 20(1):84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.184
  12. Learning Health System - Moving from Ethical Frameworks to Practical Implementation. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 09; 47(3):454-458.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.181
  13. Introduction: Sharing Data in a Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):7-11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.175
  14. Genomic Data-Sharing Practices. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):31-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.175
  15. Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):12-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.175
  16. Characterizing the Biomedical Data-Sharing Landscape. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):21-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.175
  17. Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):70-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.175
  18. Citizen science, public policy. Science. 2018 07 13; 361(6398):134-136.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.168
  19. Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons? Genome Med. 2017 09 22; 9(1):84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.159
  20. Barriers to clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing: a policy Delphi panel's solutions. Per Med. 2017; 14(4):339-354.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.156
  21. Myriad take two: Can genomic databases remain secret? Science. 2017 05 12; 356(6338):586-587.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.155
  22. The ethics of conducting molecular autopsies in cases of sudden death in the young. Genome Res. 2016 09; 26(9):1165-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.146
  23. Ethical and Legal Challenges Associated with Public Molecular Autopsies. J Law Med Ethics. 2016 06; 44(2):309-18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.145
  24. Barriers to clinical adoption of next generation sequencing: Perspectives of a policy Delphi panel. Appl Transl Genom. 2016 Sep; 10:19-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.145
  25. Developing context-specific next-generation sequencing policy. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 05 06; 34(5):466-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.144
  26. Persistent confusion and controversy surrounding gene patents. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Feb; 34(2):145-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.141
  27. Cultivating Administrative Support for a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service. J Clin Ethics. 2016; 27(4):341-351.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.141
  28. Legal Barriers to Adolescent Participation in Research About HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections. Am J Public Health. 2016 Jan; 106(1):40-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.139
  29. Taking DNA from the dead. Nat Rev Genet. 2010 May; 11(5):318.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.094
  30. The ethics of lawyer-ethicists. J Law Med Ethics. 2005; 33(3):603-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  31. Families' experiences accessing care after genomic sequencing in the pediatric cancer context: "It's just been a big juggle". J Genet Couns. 2024 Jan 15.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  32. Benefits of sharing neurophysiology data from the BRAIN Initiative Research Opportunities in Humans Consortium. Neuron. 2023 Dec 06; 111(23):3710-3715.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  33. 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.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  34. Neuroethics at 15: Keep the Kant but Add More Bacon. AJOB Neurosci. 2019 Jul-Sep; 10(3):97-100.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  35. What is a Medical Information Commons? J Law Med Ethics. 2019 03; 47(1):41-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  36. 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.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  37. Constraints on gene patent protection fuel secrecy concerns: a qualitative study. J Law Biosci. 2017 Dec; 4(3):542-564.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  38. Do privacy and security regulations need a status update? Perspectives from an intergenerational survey. PLoS One. 2017; 12(9):e0184525.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.