Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally.We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date.There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States.There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.
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 | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".