Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jul 28;11(8):736.
doi: 10.3390/jpm11080736.

Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores

Bartha M Knoppers  1 , Alexander Bernier  1 , Palmira Granados Moreno  1 , Nora Pashayan  2
Affiliations
Review

Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores

Bartha M Knoppers et al. J Pers Med. .

Abstract

Technological innovations including risk-stratification algorithms and large databases of longitudinal population health data and genetic data are allowing us to develop a deeper understanding how individual behaviors, characteristics, and genetics are related to health risk. The clinical implementation of risk-stratified screening programmes that utilise risk scores to allocate patients into tiers of health risk is foreseeable in the future. Legal and ethical challenges associated with risk-stratified cancer care must, however, be addressed. Obtaining access to the rich health data that are required to perform risk-stratification, ensuring equitable access to risk-stratified care, ensuring that algorithms that perform risk-scoring are representative of human genetic diversity, and determining the appropriate follow-up to be provided to stratification participants to alert them to changes in their risk score are among the principal ethical and legal challenges. Accounting for the great burden that regulatory requirements could impose on access to risk-scoring technologies is another critical consideration.

Keywords: bioethics; cancer screening; law; personalized medicine; polygenic risk scores; stratification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Gray J.A.M., Patnick J., Blanks R.G. Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening. BMJ. 2008;336:480–483. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39470.643218.94. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Birney E., Vamathevan J., Goodhand P. Genomics in healthcare: GA4GH looks to 2022. BioRxiv. 2017 doi: 10.1101/203554. - DOI
    1. Wilson J.M.G., Jungner G., editors. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. World Health Organization; Geneva, Switzerland: 1968.
    1. Knoppers B.M., Laberge C.M. Genetic screening: From newborns to DNA typing; Proceedings of the Workshop on Genetic Screening; La Sapiniere, QC, Canada. 13–14 October 1989.
    1. Andermann A., Blancquaert I., Beauchamp S., Déry V. Revisting wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: A review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull. World Health Organ. 2008;86:317–319. doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.050112. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources