↓ Skip to main content

Scanning the body, sequencing the genome: Dealing with unsolicited findings

Overview of attention for article published in Bioethics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Scanning the body, sequencing the genome: Dealing with unsolicited findings
Published in
Bioethics, October 2017
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12375
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roel H. P. Wouters, Candice Cornelis, Ainsley J. Newson, Eline M. Bunnik, Annelien L. Bredenoord

Abstract

The introduction of novel diagnostic techniques in clinical domains such as genomics and radiology has led to a rich ethical debate on how to handle unsolicited findings that result from these innovations. Yet while unsolicited findings arise in both genomics and radiology, most of the relevant literature to date has tended to focus on only one of these domains. In this article, we synthesize and critically assess similarities and differences between "scanning the body" and "sequencing the genome" from an ethical perspective. After briefly describing the novel diagnostic contexts leading to unsolicited findings, we synthesize and reflect on six core ethical issues that relate to both specialties: terminology; benefits and risks; autonomy; disclosure of unsolicited findings to children; uncertainty; and filters and routine screening. We identify ethical rationales that pertain to both fields and may contribute to more ethically sound policies. Considerations of preserving public trust and ensuring that people perceive healthcare policies as fair also support the need for a combined debate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Social Sciences 4 12%
Philosophy 3 9%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,631,137
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from Bioethics
#602
of 1,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,994
of 327,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioethics
#15
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 327,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.