Addressing Ethical Challenges at the Intersection of Pharmacogenomics and Primary Care Using Deliberative Consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Primary care physicians will play a central role in the successful implementation of pharmacogenomics (PGx); however, important challenges remain. We explored the perspectives of stakeholders on key challenges of the PGx translation process in primary care using deliberative consultations. METHODS: Primary care physicians, patients and policy-makers attended deliberations, where they discussed four ethical questions raised by PGx research and implementation in the primary care context. RESULTS: Stakeholders voiced skepticism regarding PGx funding, commercialization, regulation, maintenance of an equal access healthcare system and restructuring of health research incentives and priorities in the public sector. CONCLUSION: Deliberants developed governing principles for a PGx-specific charter of ethics, aiming to protect the interests of patients, and outlined recommendations for the future of PGx in primary care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.297 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".