↓ Skip to main content

Clinical decision-making and secondary findings in systems medicine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical decision-making and secondary findings in systems medicine
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0113-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Fischer, K.B. Brothers, P. Erdmann, M. Langanke

Abstract

Systems medicine is the name for an assemblage of scientific strategies and practices that include bioinformatics approaches to human biology (especially systems biology); "big data" statistical analysis; and medical informatics tools. Whereas personalized and precision medicine involve similar analytical methods applied to genomic and medical record data, systems medicine draws on these as well as other sources of data. Given this distinction, the clinical translation of systems medicine poses a number of important ethical and epistemological challenges for researchers working to generate systems medicine knowledge and clinicians working to apply it. This article focuses on three key challenges: First, we will discuss the conflicts in decision-making that can arise when healthcare providers committed to principles of experimental medicine or evidence-based medicine encounter individualized recommendations derived from computer algorithms. We will explore in particular whether controlled experiments, such as comparative effectiveness trials, should mediate the translation of systems medicine, or if instead individualized findings generated through "big data" approaches can be applied directly in clinical decision-making. Second, we will examine the case of the Riyadh Intensive Care Program Mortality Prediction Algorithm, pejoratively referred to as the "death computer," to demonstrate the ethical challenges that can arise when big-data-driven scoring systems are applied in clinical contexts. We argue that the uncritical use of predictive clinical algorithms, including those envisioned for systems medicine, challenge basic understandings of the doctor-patient relationship. Third, we will build on the recent discourse on secondary findings in genomics and imaging to draw attention to the important implications of secondary findings derived from the joint analysis of data from diverse sources, including data recorded by patients in an attempt to realize their "quantified self." This paper examines possible ethical challenges that are likely to be raised as systems medicine to be translated into clinical medicine. These include the epistemological challenges for clinical decision-making, the use of scoring systems optimized by big data techniques and the risk that incidental and secondary findings will significantly increase. While some ethical implications remain still hypothetical we should use the opportunity to prospectively identify challenges to avoid making foreseeable mistakes when systems medicine inevitably arrives in routine care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 20%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Computer Science 4 13%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unspecified 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 21 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,133,942
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#228
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,357
of 333,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 333,160 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 64% of its contemporaries.