These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31402353)

  • 1. Who's on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services.
    Guerrini CJ; Wagner JK; Nelson SC; Javitt GH; McGuire AL
    Genet Med; 2020 Jan; 22(1):4-11. PubMed ID: 31402353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Genetic gatekeepers: regulating direct-to-consumer genomic services in an era of participatory medicine.
    Palmer JE
    Food Drug Law J; 2012; 67(4):475-524, iii. PubMed ID: 24640618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Finding a Clear Path Forward.
    Seward B
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2018 Jul; 52(4):482-488. PubMed ID: 29714553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. ASHG Statement* on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States.
    Hudson K; Javitt G; Burke W; Byers P;
    Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Dec; 110(6):1392-5. PubMed ID: 18055737
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study of Consumer Motivation and Behavior.
    Nelson SC; Bowen DJ; Fullerton SM
    Am J Hum Genet; 2019 Jul; 105(1):122-131. PubMed ID: 31204012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. US urged to monitor some genetic tests.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 1997 Feb; 385(6616):477. PubMed ID: 9020348
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: learning from the past and looking toward the future.
    Bair S
    Food Drug Law J; 2012; 67(4):413-33, ii. PubMed ID: 24640615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Who Knows What, and When?: A Survey of the Privacy Policies Proffered by U.S. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies.
    Hazel JW; Slobogin C
    Cornell J Law Public Policy; 2018; 28(1):35-66. PubMed ID: 30840416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology
    J Clin Oncol; 2003 Jun; 21(12):2397-406. PubMed ID: 12692171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Patient experiences with clinical confirmatory genetic testing after using direct-to-consumer raw DNA and third-party genetic interpretation services.
    Nguyen Dolphyn TT; Ormond KE; Weissman SM; Kim HJ; Reuter CM
    Transl Behav Med; 2023 Feb; 13(2):104-114. PubMed ID: 36327324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. "Bridge to the Literature"? Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers.
    Nelson SC; Fullerton SM
    J Genet Couns; 2018 Aug; 27(4):770-781. PubMed ID: 29411211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The need for increased oversight of genetic testing: a detailed look at the genetic testing process.
    Bonnin DC
    Houst J Health Law Policy; 2003; 4(1):149-80. PubMed ID: 16596751
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services.
    Wang C; Cahill TJ; Parlato A; Wertz B; Zhong Q; Cunningham TN; Cummings JJ
    Mol Genet Genomic Med; 2018 Jan; 6(1):35-43. PubMed ID: 29471590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing with third party interpretation: beware of spurious results.
    Horton R; Crawford G; Freeman L; Fenwick A; Lucassen A
    Emerg Top Life Sci; 2019 Nov; 3(6):669-674. PubMed ID: 32915220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Science and Regulation. Changes on the horizon for consumer genomics in the EU.
    Kalokairinou L; Howard HC; Borry P
    Science; 2014 Oct; 346(6207):296-8. PubMed ID: 25324369
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.
    Sayeed SA
    Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic testing: protecting the consumer without quashing a medical revolution.
    Gniady JA
    Fordham Law Rev; 2008 Apr; 76(5):2429-75. PubMed ID: 18546580
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Direct-to-Consumer Medical Testing in the Era of Value-Based Care.
    Rockwell KL
    JAMA; 2017 Jun; 317(24):2485-2486. PubMed ID: 28542699
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Economic and quality of life outcomes in oncology: the regulatory perspective.
    Turner S
    Oncology (Williston Park); 1995 Nov; 9(11 Suppl):121-5. PubMed ID: 8608041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A conceptual framework for genetic policy: comparing the medical, public health, and fundamental rights models.
    Andrews LB
    Wash Univ Law Q; 2001; 79(152):221-85. PubMed ID: 16211786
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.