ReviewNature genetics2026
Recommendations for return of secondary genomic findings in observational cohort studies.
Review in Nature genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The return of secondary genomic findings (ROSF) to participants in observational cohort studies has evolved from a topic of debate to an accepted standard. This Perspective synthesizes the proceedings of a 2024 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute-sponsored workshop and the broader literature to provide updated guidance for ROSF. Building on the 2010 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Working Group recommendations and the 2014 Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research/Electronic Medical Records and Genomics 'floor and ceiling' framework, we address four areas: an integrated ethical framework for observational cohort settings; the emerging challenge of returning novel result types beyond monogenic variants, including polygenic risk scores, somatic mosaicism and pharmacogenomic findings; health equity and community engagement as structural prerequisites for ethical ROSF; and scalability challenges, including technology-assisted disclosure. Drawing on implementation experience from large-scale sequencing programs, we offer recommendations that balance researcher obligations with participant autonomy and equitable access to the benefits of genomic research.
Identifiers
42728385What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.