Published in JAMA on December 10, 2008
Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth (2009) 8.28
Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med (2011) 6.90
An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome. Genet Med (2012) 4.31
The Scientific Foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genet Med (2009) 2.91
Bioinformatics challenges for personalized medicine. Bioinformatics (2011) 2.28
The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med (2012) 2.15
Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions. Genet Med (2009) 2.07
Direct to consumer genetic testing: Avoiding a culture war. Genet Med (2009) 2.00
Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med (2010) 1.98
Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics (2011) 1.96
Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genet Soc (2010) 1.96
Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat Rev Genet (2010) 1.87
You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative. Per Med (2011) 1.75
Prospective comparison of family medical history with personal genome screening for risk assessment of common cancers. Eur J Hum Genet (2012) 1.62
Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet (2009) 1.62
The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine. Trials (2014) 1.62
Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing. Hum Mol Genet (2011) 1.61
Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders. Eur J Hum Genet (2011) 1.57
Genome-wide association studies of cancer. J Clin Oncol (2010) 1.45
A population approach to precision medicine. Am J Prev Med (2012) 1.44
Personal genome testing in medical education: student experiences with genotyping in the classroom. Genome Med (2013) 1.44
Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model. Genet Med (2013) 1.43
Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study. J Clin Oncol (2016) 1.42
Do environmental factors modify the genetic risk of prostate cancer? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2014) 1.42
Debating clinical utility. Public Health Genomics (2010) 1.41
Pharmacogenetics: Using Genetic Information to Guide Drug Therapy. Am Fam Physician (2015) 1.39
The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet (2011) 1.38
Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet (2012) 1.38
Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet (2013) 1.33
Association between health-service use and multiplex genetic testing. Genet Med (2012) 1.29
Personal genomes in progress: from the human genome project to the personal genome project. Dialogues Clin Neurosci (2010) 1.29
Personal genome research : what should the participant be told? Trends Genet (2010) 1.29
Dealing with the unexpected: consumer responses to direct-access BRCA mutation testing. PeerJ (2013) 1.26
Mapping the incidentalome: estimating incidental findings generated through clinical pharmacogenomics testing. Genet Med (2012) 1.17
Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice. Genet Med (2012) 1.17
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an assessment of genetic counselors' knowledge and beliefs. Genet Med (2011) 1.16
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Personal Genomics Services: A Review of Recent Empirical Studies. Curr Genet Med Rep (2013) 1.16
Early identification of cardiovascular risk using genomics and proteomics. Nat Rev Cardiol (2010) 1.14
Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a prospective cohort study of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing customers. Genome Med (2014) 1.14
Using lifetime risk estimates in personal genomic profiles: estimation of uncertainty. Am J Hum Genet (2009) 1.14
Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers (2010) 1.13
Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing. Genet Med (2012) 1.11
Currents in contemporary ethics. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: is it the practice of medicine? J Law Med Ethics (2009) 1.10
Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clin Proc (2011) 1.09
Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues. BMC Med Ethics (2011) 1.08
A randomized trial of genetic information for personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr (2012) 1.08
Genetics patients' perspectives on clinical genomic testing. Per Med (2013) 1.07
Genetic research with stored biological materials: ethics and practice. IRB (2010) 1.05
Evaluation of genetic tests for susceptibility to common complex diseases: why, when and how? Hum Genet (2009) 1.03
Does genomic risk information motivate people to change their behavior? Genome Med (2009) 1.03
Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group. Genet Med (2014) 1.01
"It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information. J Genet Couns (2011) 1.01
Personalized genomic disease risk of volunteers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2013) 0.99
How to know when physicians are ready for genomic medicine. Sci Transl Med (2015) 0.98
Genetic susceptibility testing for neurodegenerative diseases: ethical and practice issues. Prog Neurobiol (2013) 0.98
Are the kids really all right? Direct-to-consumer genetic testing in children: are company policies clashing with professional norms? Eur J Hum Genet (2011) 0.98
Increasing Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Health Care Access, Internet Use, and Population Density Correlates. J Cancer Epidemiol (2012) 0.98
Neither as harmful as feared by critics nor as empowering as promised by providers: risk information offered direct to consumer by personal genomics companies. J Community Genet (2012) 0.97
Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most? Eur J Hum Genet (2013) 0.95
Public perceptions of presymptomatic testing for Alzheimer disease. Mayo Clin Proc (2014) 0.93
Return of individual genetic results in a high-risk sample: enthusiasm and positive behavioral change. Genet Med (2014) 0.91
Emerging issues in public health genomics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet (2014) 0.91
Points to consider in assessing and appraising predictive genetic tests. J Community Genet (2010) 0.91
Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature. J Community Genet (2013) 0.90
Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Public Health Genomics (2010) 0.90
Incorporating direct-to-consumer genomic information into patient care: attitudes and experiences of primary care physicians. Per Med (2012) 0.89
Paving the Way to Personalized Genomic Medicine: Steps to Successful Implementation. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med (2009) 0.89
How could disclosing incidental information from whole-genome sequencing affect patient behavior? Per Med (2013) 0.89
Patient-controlled encrypted genomic data: an approach to advance clinical genomics. BMC Med Genomics (2012) 0.85
Genetic self knowledge and the future of epidemiologic confounding. Am J Hum Genet (2010) 0.84
Awareness and uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic testing among cancer cases, their relatives, and controls: the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers (2012) 0.83
Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: a mixed method study. BMC Health Serv Res (2013) 0.83
The impact of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing on perceived risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer: findings from the PGen study. BMC Med Genomics (2015) 0.83
The Human Genome Project, and recent advances in personalized genomics. Risk Manag Healthc Policy (2015) 0.82
Only connect: personal genomics and the future of American medicine. Mol Diagn Ther (2010) 0.82
Primary care patients' views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a longitudinal study. J Community Genet (2013) 0.81
Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes. Public Health Genomics (2014) 0.81
Are social networkers and genome testers one in the same? The limitations of public opinion research for guiding clinical practice. Am J Bioeth (2009) 0.80
What are people willing to pay for whole-genome sequencing information, and who decides what they receive? Genet Med (2016) 0.80
Beyond clinical utility: The multiple values of DTC genetics. Appl Transl Genom (2016) 0.80
Attitudes towards personal genomics among older Swiss adults: An exploratory study. Appl Transl Genom (2016) 0.79
Disentangling public participation in science and biomedicine. Genome Med (2014) 0.78
Personalized genomic educational testing: what do the undergrads think? Am J Bioeth (2012) 0.78
Health care providers and direct-to-consumer access and advertising of genetic testing in the United States. Genome Med (2011) 0.78
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic and Genomic Testing: Preparing Nurse Practitioners for Genomic Healthcare. J Nurse Pract (2010) 0.77
"Use it or lose it" as an alternative approach to protect genetic privacy in personalized medicine. Urol Oncol (2014) 0.77
Genomic medicine: evolving science, evolving ethics. Per Med (2012) 0.77
Informing the Design of Direct-to-Consumer Interactive Personal Genomics Reports. J Med Internet Res (2015) 0.77
Genomic medicine in primary care: barriers and assets. Postgrad Med J (2013) 0.76
Advising patients about obtaining genomic profiles. Neurol Clin Pract (2011) 0.75
Prescription medication changes following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study. Genet Med (2016) 0.75
Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda. J Gen Intern Med (2016) 0.75
Utility of single nucleotide polymorphisms in prostate biopsy decisions. Rev Urol (2012) 0.75
Estimating Preferences for Complex Health Technologies: Lessons Learned and Implications for Personalized Medicine. Value Health (2017) 0.75
EMR documentation of physician-patient communication following genomic counseling for actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomic results. Clin Genet (2016) 0.75
Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med (2007) 41.06
Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health (2003) 15.81
The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet Med (2007) 9.48
Letting the genome out of the bottle--will we get our wish? N Engl J Med (2008) 9.10
Protecting the medical commons: who is responsible? N Engl J Med (1975) 3.08
Cascade effects of medical technology. Annu Rev Public Health (2001) 2.79
Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA (2007) 1.63
Managing medical resources: return to the commons? JAMA (2007) 1.46
Patient self-referral for radiologic screening tests: clinical and ethical concerns. J Am Board Fam Pract (2004) 1.31
Psychology. The unseen mind. Science (2008) 1.26
International network of cancer genome projects. Nature (2010) 20.35
American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin (2007) 12.19
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) 6.74
Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA (2006) 4.87
Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci Transl Med (2010) 4.51
American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin (2003) 4.43
Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants' exomes. Am J Hum Genet (2013) 4.06
Reconsidering the family history in primary care. J Gen Intern Med (2004) 3.50
Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med (2010) 3.45
National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med (2012) 3.44
Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Genet Med (2012) 3.29
Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics (2010) 3.29
Potential for genetics to promote public health: genetics research on smoking suggests caution about expectations. JAMA (2006) 3.20
ASHG Statement* on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States. Obstet Gynecol (2007) 3.19
Newborn screening technology: proceed with caution. Pediatrics (2006) 2.54
Science and regulation. Regulating direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Science (2010) 2.40
A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med (2010) 2.40
The genomic applications in practice and prevention network. Genet Med (2009) 2.39
Pharmacogenetic testing: not as simple as it seems. Genet Med (2008) 2.18
Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time. Nat Genet (2003) 2.11
The FDA and genomic tests--getting regulation right. N Engl J Med (2015) 2.09
Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Genet Med (2013) 2.08
Next-generation sequencing in the clinic: are we ready? Nat Rev Genet (2012) 1.95
The OHRP and SUPPORT. N Engl J Med (2013) 1.78
Design, implementation, and first-year outcomes of a value-based drug formulary. J Manag Care Spec Pharm (2015) 1.67
Researcher perspectives on disclosure of incidental findings in genetic research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics (2010) 1.55
Differential use of available genetic tests among primary care physicians in the United States: results of a national survey. Genet Med (2008) 1.51
Clinical decisions. Screening an asymptomatic person for genetic risk. N Engl J Med (2014) 1.51
Informed Consent in Genome-Scale Research: What Do Prospective Participants Think? AJOB Prim Res (2012) 1.50
Confronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium. Genet Med (2010) 1.47
Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: association with lobular breast cancer. Fam Cancer (2008) 1.45
Genetic counseling and testing for Alzheimer disease: joint practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genet Med (2011) 1.44
Current priorities for public health practice in addressing the role of human genomics in improving population health. Am J Prev Med (2011) 1.36
Taking family history seriously. Ann Intern Med (2005) 1.36
Diverse perceptions of the informed consent process: implications for the recruitment and participation of diverse communities in the National Children's Study. Am J Community Psychol (2012) 1.28
Trends in death associated with pediatric dental sedation and general anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth (2013) 1.28
Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med (2005) 1.27
Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic research. Am J Med Genet A (2004) 1.20
Offering aggregate results to participants in genomic research: opportunities and challenges. Genet Med (2012) 1.19
An economic viewpoint on alternative strategies for identifying persons with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Genet Med (2003) 1.18
Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value--development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genet Med (2013) 1.16
Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet (2014) 1.16
NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. NIH Consens State Sci Statements (2013) 1.14
Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians. Genet Med (2013) 1.11
Pharmacogenomic testing to prevent aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in cystic fibrosis patients: potential impact on clinical, patient, and economic outcomes. Genet Med (2007) 1.11
Educational needs in genetic medicine: primary care perspectives. Community Genet (2008) 1.09
Waiving informed consent in newborn screening research: balancing social value and respect. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet (2008) 1.08
Breast cancer risk counseling improves women's functioning. Patient Educ Couns (2004) 1.06
Will genomics widen or help heal the schism between medicine and public health? Am J Prev Med (2007) 1.06
Anticipating dissemination of cancer genomics in public health: a theoretical approach to psychosocial and behavioral challenges. Ann Behav Med (2007) 1.05
Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis. Genet Med (2012) 1.05
Does genomic risk information motivate people to change their behavior? Genome Med (2009) 1.03
Stakeholder perspectives on a risk-benefit framework for genetic testing. Public Health Genomics (2010) 0.98
Predictors of recruited melanoma families into a behavioral intervention project. Contemp Clin Trials (2011) 0.98
Primary-care physicians' access to genetic specialists: an impediment to the routine use of genomic medicine? Genet Med (2013) 0.97
Genetic exceptionalism. Too much of a good thing? Genet Med (2008) 0.97
From leaky pipeline to irrigation system: minority education through the lens of community-based participatory research. Prog Community Health Partnersh (2012) 0.97
Family history assessment to detect increased risk for colorectal cancer: conceptual considerations and a preliminary economic analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2005) 0.97
Genetic information: Special or not? Responses from focus groups with members of a health maintenance organization. Am J Med Genet A (2007) 0.96
Implementation outcomes of a multiinstitutional web-based ethical, legal, and social implications genetics curriculum for primary care residents in three specialties. Genet Med (2011) 0.96
Effects of individual and family functioning on interest in genetic testing. Community Genet (2004) 0.94
Effects of web-based intervention on risk reduction behaviors in melanoma survivors. J Cancer Surviv (2014) 0.94
Beneficence, clinical urgency, and the return of individual research results to relatives. Am J Bioeth (2012) 0.93
The rules remain the same for genomic medicine: the case against "reverse genetic exceptionalism". Genet Med (2010) 0.93
Cytochrome p450 enzyme polymorphism frequency in indigenous and native american populations: a systematic review. Community Genet (2008) 0.91
Risk, reward, and the double-edged sword: perspectives on pharmacogenetic research and clinical testing among Alaska Native people. Am J Public Health (2013) 0.91
Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Public Health Genomics (2010) 0.90
Population description and its role in the interpretation of genetic association. Hum Genet (2010) 0.90
Will knowledge of gene-based colorectal cancer disease risk influence quality of life and screening behavior? Findings from a population-based study. Public Health Genomics (2009) 0.88
Maternal perspectives on the return of genetic results: context matters. Am J Med Genet A (2012) 0.88
Breast cancer risk communication: assessment of primary care physicians by standardized patients. Genet Med (2009) 0.88
Incorporating principles and practical wisdom in research ethics education: a preliminary study. Acad Med (2007) 0.87
Building partnerships in community-based participatory research: budgetary and other cost considerations. Health Promot Pract (2013) 0.85
Using pharmacogenetics to improve drug safety and efficacy. JAMA (2004) 0.85
Long-term outcomes of the "Genetics in Primary Care" faculty development initiative. Fam Med (2009) 0.84
Pharmacogenetic research in partnership with American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Pharmacogenomics (2014) 0.83
Achieving utility with family history: colorectal cancer risk. Am J Prev Med (2003) 0.83
Deliberate deceit of family members: a challenge to providers of clinical genetics services. J Clin Oncol (2006) 0.83
Motivating factors for physician ordering of factor V Leiden genetic tests. Arch Intern Med (2009) 0.81
Familial aggregation of early-onset myocardial infarction. Community Genet (2002) 0.81
Genetic risk in context: calculating the penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst (2002) 0.81
Effects of counseling Ashkenazi Jewish women about breast cancer risk. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol (2006) 0.81
Personalized medicine and tobacco-related health disparities: is there a role for genetics? Ann Fam Med (2011) 0.80
Native Hawaiian views on biobanking. J Cancer Educ (2014) 0.80
Clinical and public health implications of emerging genetic technologies. Semin Nephrol (2010) 0.80
Adding pharmacogenetics information to drug labels: lessons learned. Pharmacogenet Genomics (2006) 0.80
Use of Factor V Leiden genetic testing in practice and impact on management. Genet Med (2009) 0.79
The asthma consultative process: a collaborative approach to integrating genomics into public health practice. Prev Chronic Dis (2005) 0.79
Duty to warn at-risk family members of genetic disease. Virtual Mentor (2009) 0.78
Pharmacogenomics in diverse practice settings: implementation beyond major metropolitan areas. Pharmacogenomics (2015) 0.78
Changing the clinical management of hereditary hemochromatosis: translating screening and early case detection strategies into clinical practice. Arch Intern Med (2004) 0.78
'That's like chopping off a finger because you're afraid it might get broken': disease and illness in women's views of prophylactic mastectomy. Soc Sci Med (2005) 0.78
Jewish identity and intentions to obtain breast cancer screening. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol (2003) 0.78
Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine. Am J Hum Genet (2016) 0.77
Hereditary hemochromatosis: perspectives of public health, medical genetics, and primary care. Genet Med (2003) 0.76
Effects of risk counseling on interest in breast cancer genetic testing for lower risk women. Genet Med (2002) 0.76
Values in translation: how asking the right questions can move translational science toward greater health impact. Clin Transl Sci (2012) 0.76
Breast cancer and breastfeeding. Lancet (2003) 0.75
Banning pens and pads misses the main point. Am J Bioeth (2003) 0.75
Re: On the use of familial aggregation in population-based case probands for calculating penetrance. J Natl Cancer Inst (2003) 0.75