| Title |
Molecular Tumor Boards: Ethical Issues in the New Era of Data Medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9880-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henri-Corto Stoeklé, Marie-France Mamzer-Bruneel, Charles-Henry Frouart, Christophe Le Tourneau, Pierre Laurent-Puig, Guillaume Vogt, Christian Hervé |
| Abstract |
The practice and development of modern medicine requires large amounts of data, particularly in the domain of cancer. The future of personalized medicine lies neither with "genomic medicine" nor with "precision medicine", but with "data medicine" (DM) (big data, data mining). The establishment of this DM has required far-reaching changes, to establish four essential elements connecting patients and doctors: biobanks, databases, bioinformatic platforms and genomic platforms. The "transformation" of scientific research areas, such as genetics, bioinformatics and biostatistics, into clinical specialties has generated a new vision of care. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) are one response to these changes and are now providing better access to next-generation sequencing (NGS) and new cancer treatments to patients with inoperable or metastatic cancers, and those for whom the usual treatment has failed. However, MTB face a crucial ethical challenge: maintaining and improving the trust of patients, clinicians, researchers and industry in academic medical centers supported by private or public funding rather than providing genetic data directly to private companies. We believe that, in this era of DM, appropriate modern digital communication networks will be required to maintain this trust and to improve the organization and effectiveness of the system. There is, therefore, a need to reconsider the form and content of informed consent (IC) documents at all academic medical centers and to introduce dynamic and electronic informed consent (e-IC). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 34 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 37 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,600,567
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#273
of 969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,489
of 321,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#15
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.