Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36642749›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2023

Revisiting informed consent in forensic genomics in light of current technologies and the times.

Bruce Budowle, Antti Sajantila

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interpol review of forensic science management, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bruce BudowleDepartment of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. b.budowle@att.net.
Antti SajantilaDepartment of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed consent is based on basic ethical principles that should be considered when conducting biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. These principles-respect, beneficence, and justice-form the foundations of informed consent which in itself is grounded on three fundamental elements: information, comprehension, and voluntary participation. While informed consent has focused on human subjects and research, the practice has been adopted willingly in the forensic science arena primarily to acquire reference samples from family members to assist in identifying missing persons. With advances in molecular biology technologies, data mining, and access to metadata, it is important to assess whether the past informed consent process and in particular associated risks are concomitant with these increased capabilities. Given the state-of-the-art, areas in which informed consent may need to be modified and augmented are as follows: reference samples from family members in missing persons or unidentified human remains cases; targeted analysis of an individual(s) during forensic genetic genealogy cases to reduce an investigative burden; donors who provide their samples for validation studies (to include population studies and entry into databases that would be applied to forensic statistical calculations) to support implementation of procedures and operations of the forensic laboratory; family members that may contribute samples or obtain genetic information from a molecular autopsy; and use of medical and other acquired samples that could be informative for identification purposes. The informed consent process should cover (1) purpose for collection of samples; (2) process to analyze the samples (to include type of data); (3) benefits (to donor, target, family, community, etc. as applicable); (4) risks (to donor, target, family, community, etc. as applicable); (5) access to data/reports by the donor; (6) sample disposition; (7) removal of data process (i.e., expungement); (8) process to ask questions/assessment of comprehension; (9) follow-up processes; and (10) voluntary, signed, and dated consent. Issues surrounding these topics are discussed with an emphasis on addressing risk factors. Addressing informed consent will allow human subjects to make decisions voluntarily and with autonomy as well as secure the use of samples for intended use.

Indexed as

ComprehensionInformed ConsentHumansResearch DesignBenefitBioinformaticsGenetic genealogyGenetic informationInformed consentRisk

Identifiers

PMID36642749
PMCPMC9902322
OpenAlexW4316344979

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.