Compassionate Machines: The Ethics of "Artificial Empathy" in Cancer Care.

This Viewpoint discusses the ethics of artificial intelligence­generated compassion in cancer care and outlines 4 main points of concern.

Managing differential performance of polygenic risk scores across groups: Real-world experience of the eMERGE Network.

The differential performance of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) by group is one of the major ethical barriers to their clinical use. It is also one of the main practical challenges for any implementation effort. The social repercussions of how people are grouped in PRS research must be considered in communications with research participants, including return of results. Here, we outline the decisions faced and choices made by a large multi-site clinical implementation study returning PRSs to diverse participants in handling this issue of differential performance. Our approach to managing the complexities associated with the differential performance of PRSs serves as a case study that can help future implementers of PRSs to plot an anticipatory course in response to this issue.

The GenoVA study: Equitable implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic-risk scoring in primary care.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for disease risk assessment and prevention. The Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study is addressing three main challenges to the clinical implementation of PRSs in preventive care: defining and determining their clinical utility, implementing them in time-constrained primary care settings, and countering their potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities. The study processes used to test patients, report their PRS results to them and their primary care providers (PCPs), and promote the use of those results in clinical decision-making are modeled on common practices in primary care. The following diseases were chosen for their prevalence and familiarity to PCPs: coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; atrial fibrillation; and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. A randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and primary outcome of time-to-new-diagnosis of a target disease bring methodological rigor to the question of the clinical utility of PRS implementation. The study's pragmatic RCT design enhances its relevance to how PRS might reasonably be implemented in primary care. Steps the study has taken to promote health equity include the thoughtful handling of genetic ancestry in PRS construction and reporting and enhanced recruitment strategies to address underrepresentation in research participation. To date, enhanced recruitment efforts have been both necessary and successful: participants of underrepresented race and ethnicity groups have been less likely to enroll in the study than expected but ultimately achieved proportional representation through targeted efforts. The GenoVA Study experience to date offers insights for evaluating the clinical utility of equitable PRS implementation in adult primary care.

An Ethical Framework for Research Using Genetic Ancestry.

A wide range of research uses patterns of genetic variation to infer genetic similarity between individuals, typically referred to as genetic ancestry. This research includes inference of human demographic history, understanding the genetic architecture of traits, and predicting disease risk. Researchers are not just structuring an intellectual inquiry when using genetic ancestry, they are also creating analytical frameworks with broader societal ramifications. This essay presents an ethics framework in the spirit of virtue ethics for these researchers: rather than focus on rule following, the framework is designed to build researchers' capacities to react to the ethical dimensions of their work. The authors identify one overarching principle of intellectual freedom and responsibility, noting that freedom in all its guises comes with responsibility, and they identify and define four principles that collectively uphold researchers' intellectual responsibility: truthfulness, justice and fairness, anti-racism, and public beneficence. Researchers should bring their practices into alignment with these principles, and to aid this, the authors name three common ways research practices infringe these principles, suggest a step-by-step process for aligning research choices with the principles, provide rules of thumb for achieving alignment, and give a worked case. The essay concludes by identifying support needed by researchers to act in accord with the proposed framework.

Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential to improve health care by identifying individuals that have elevated risk for common complex conditions. Use of PRS in clinical practice, however, requires careful assessment of the needs and capabilities of patients, providers, and health care systems. The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is conducting a collaborative study which will return PRS to 25,000 pediatric and adult participants. All participants will receive a risk report, potentially classifying them as high risk (∼2-10% per condition) for 1 or more of 10 conditions based on PRS. The study population is enriched by participants from racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, and populations who experience poorer medical outcomes. All 10 eMERGE clinical sites conducted focus groups, interviews, and/or surveys to understand educational needs among key stakeholders-participants, providers, and/or study staff. Together, these studies highlighted the need for tools that address the perceived benefit/value of PRS, types of education/support needed, accessibility, and PRS-related knowledge and understanding. Based on findings from these preliminary studies, the network harmonized training initiatives and formal/informal educational resources. This paper summarizes eMERGE's collective approach to assessing educational needs and developing educational approaches for primary stakeholders. It discusses challenges encountered and solutions provided.

Ancestry: How researchers use it and what they mean by it.

Background: Ancestry is often viewed as a more objective and less objectionable population descriptor than race or ethnicity. Perhaps reflecting this, usage of the term "ancestry" is rapidly growing in genetics research, with ancestry groups referenced in many situations. The appropriate usage of population descriptors in genetics research is an ongoing source of debate. Sound normative guidance should rest on an empirical understanding of current usage; in the case of ancestry, questions about how researchers use the concept, and what they mean by it, remain unanswered. Methods: Systematic literature analysis of 205 articles at least tangentially related to human health from diverse disciplines that use the concept of ancestry, and semi-structured interviews with 44 lead authors of some of those articles. Results: Ancestry is relied on to structure research questions and key methodological approaches. Yet researchers struggle to define it, and/or offer diverse definitions. For some ancestry is a genetic concept, but for many-including geneticists-ancestry is only tangentially related to genetics. For some interviewees, ancestry is explicitly equated to ethnicity; for others it is explicitly distanced from it. Ancestry is operationalized using multiple data types (including genetic variation and self-reported identities), though for a large fraction of articles (26%) it is impossible to tell which data types were used. Across the literature and interviews there is no consistent understanding of how ancestry relates to genetic concepts (including genetic ancestry and population structure), nor how these genetic concepts relate to each other. Beyond this conceptual confusion, practices related to summarizing patterns of genetic variation often rest on uninterrogated conventions. Continental labels are by far the most common type of label applied to ancestry groups. We observed many instances of slippage between reference to ancestry groups and racial groups. Conclusion: Ancestry is in practice a highly ambiguous concept, and far from an objective counterpart to race or ethnicity. It is not uniquely a "biological" construct, and it does not represent a "safe haven" for researchers seeking to avoid evoking race or ethnicity in their work. Distinguishing genetic ancestry from ancestry more broadly will be a necessary part of providing conceptual clarity.

A scoping review of guidelines for the use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry reveals widespread consensus but also points of ongoing disagreement.

The use of population descriptors such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry in science, medicine, and public health has a long, complicated, and at times dark history, particularly for genetics, given the field's perceived importance for understanding between-group differences. The historical and potential harms that come with irresponsible use of these categories suggests a clear need for definitive guidance about when and how they can be used appropriately. However, while many prior authors have provided such guidance, no established consensus exists, and the extant literature has not been examined for implied consensus and sources of disagreement. Here, we present the results of a scoping review of published normative recommendations regarding the use of population categories, particularly in genetics research. Following PRISMA guidelines, we extracted recommendations from n = 121 articles matching inclusion criteria. Articles were published consistently throughout the time period examined and in a broad range of journals, demonstrating an ongoing and interdisciplinary perceived need for guidance. Examined recommendations fall under one of eight themes identified during analysis. Seven are characterized by broad agreement across articles; one, "appropriate definitions of population categories and contexts for use," revealed substantial fundamental disagreement among articles. Additionally, while many articles focus on the inappropriate use of race, none fundamentally problematize ancestry. This work can be a resource to researchers looking for normative guidance on the use of population descriptors and can orient authors of future guidelines to this complex field, thereby contributing to the development of more effective future guidelines for genetics research.

Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS. RESULTS: Many patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Development of a clinical polygenic risk score assay and reporting workflow.

Implementation of polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve disease prevention and management but poses several challenges: the construction of clinically valid assays, interpretation for individual patients, and the development of clinical workflows and resources to support their use in patient care. For the ongoing Veterans Affairs Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study we developed a clinical genotype array-based assay for six published PRS. We used data from 36,423 Mass General Brigham Biobank participants and adjustment for population structure to replicate known PRS-disease associations and published PRS thresholds for a disease odds ratio (OR) of 2 (ranging from 1.75 (95% CI: 1.57-1.95) for type 2 diabetes to 2.38 (95% CI: 2.07-2.73) for breast cancer). After confirming the high performance and robustness of the pipeline for use as a clinical assay for individual patients, we analyzed the first 227 prospective samples from the GenoVA Study and found that the frequency of PRS corresponding to published OR > 2 ranged from 13/227 (5.7%) for colorectal cancer to 23/150 (15.3%) for prostate cancer. In addition to the PRS laboratory report, we developed physician- and patient-oriented informational materials to support decision-making about PRS results. Our work illustrates the generalizable development of a clinical PRS assay for multiple conditions and the technical, reporting and clinical workflow challenges for implementing PRS information in the clinic.

Getting genetic ancestry right for science and society.

We must embrace a multidimensional, continuous view of ancestry and move away from continental ancestry categories.

An international policy on returning genomic research results.

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health has approved a policy for the return of clinically actionable genomic research results, the first such policy approved by an international body. The policy acknowledges the potential medical benefits to millions of individuals who are participating in genomics research. It ties the pace of implementation to each country's clinical standards, including for the return of secondary findings, and urges funders to set aside resources to support responsible return.

Conflicts of interest in oncology expanded access studies.

Expanded access is a treatment use of investigational drugs, biologicals or medical devices outside of clinical trials. The purpose of our study was to assess self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) in oncology expanded access studies. One hundred fifty-eight oncology expanded access studies published from 2013 through 2020 were included. The pharmaceutical industry funded either completely or in part 94 studies (59.49%). The authors disclosed mostly financial COIs, while the number of the reported nonfinancial conflicts was relatively small (3528 and 57 COIs, respectively). The number of articles in which at least one author had a financial COI was 118 (74.68%). The most common financial COI types included advisory board membership/consulting (1471 COIs; 41.7%), followed by honoraria (570 COIs; 16.16%) and research funding (441 COIs; 12.5%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of disclosing financial COIs and positive study's conclusions. On univariate analysis, financial COIs were more likely to occur in studies with at least one center located in the United States (odds ratio [OR], 5.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-35.98; P = .02). We also found that positive conclusions about the studied treatments were less likely in studies without industry funding (OR, 0.26; CI, 0.08-0.77; P = .01). Most of the research on COIs in oncology performed to date focused on other types of studies, especially clinical trials. To our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate COIs in oncology expanded access studies.

Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues.

Clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) will look very different to the more familiar monogenic testing. Here we argue that despite these differences, most of the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) raised in the monogenic setting, such as the relevance of results to family members, the approach to secondary and incidental findings, and the role of expert mediators, continue to be relevant in the polygenic context, albeit in modified form. In addition, PRS will reanimate other old debates. Their use has been proposed both in the practice of clinical medicine and of public health, two contexts with differing norms. In each of these domains, it is unclear what endpoints clinical use of PRS should aim to maximize and under what constraints. Reducing health disparities is a key value for public health, but clinical use of PRS could exacerbate race-based health disparities owing to differences in predictive power across ancestry groups. Finally, PRS will force a reckoning with pre-existing questions concerning biomarkers, namely the relevance of self-reported race, ethnicity and ancestry, and the relationship of risk factors to disease diagnoses. In this Opinion, we argue that despite the parallels to the monogenic setting, new work is urgently needed to gather data, consider normative implications, and develop best practices around this emerging branch of genomics.

Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: Translating risk into action.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are heralded as useful tools for risk stratification and personalized preventive care, but they are clinically useful only if they can be translated into action. The risk information conveyed by a PRS must be contextualized to enable this. Best practices are evolving but are likely to involve integrating a PRS into an absolute risk model and using guideline-driven care linked to a specific threshold of risk. Because this approach is not currently available for most diseases, it may be necessary to use different methods of presenting risk and linking it to appropriate clinical action. We discuss the trade-offs of each strategy and argue for transparent communication to providers and patients of the imprecision in both risk estimates and action thresholds for PRSs.

What evidence is there for the homology of protein-protein interactions?

The notion that sequence homology implies functional similarity underlies much of computational biology. In the case of protein-protein interactions, an interaction can be inferred between two proteins on the basis that sequence-similar proteins have been observed to interact. The use of transferred interactions is common, but the legitimacy of such inferred interactions is not clear. Here we investigate transferred interactions and whether data incompleteness explains the lack of evidence found for them. Using definitions of homology associated with functional annotation transfer, we estimate that conservation rates of interactions are low even after taking interactome incompleteness into account. For example, at a blastp E-value threshold of 10(-70), we estimate the conservation rate to be about 11 % between S. cerevisiae and H. sapiens. Our method also produces estimates of interactome sizes (which are similar to those previously proposed). Using our estimates of interaction conservation we estimate the rate at which protein-protein interactions are lost across species. To our knowledge, this is the first such study based on large-scale data. Previous work has suggested that interactions transferred within species are more reliable than interactions transferred across species. By controlling for factors that are specific to within-species interaction prediction, we propose that the transfer of interactions within species might be less reliable than transfers between species. Protein-protein interactions appear to be very rarely conserved unless very high sequence similarity is observed. Consequently, inferred interactions should be used with care.

The function of communities in protein interaction networks at multiple scales.

BACKGROUND: If biology is modular then clusters, or communities, of proteins derived using only protein interaction network structure should define protein modules with similar biological roles. We investigate the link between biological modules and network communities in yeast and its relationship to the scale at which we probe the network. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate that the functional homogeneity of communities depends on the scale selected, and that almost all proteins lie in a functionally homogeneous community at some scale. We judge functional homogeneity using a novel test and three independent characterizations of protein function, and find a high degree of overlap between these measures. We show that a high mean clustering coefficient of a community can be used to identify those that are functionally homogeneous. By tracing the community membership of a protein through multiple scales we demonstrate how our approach could be useful to biologists focusing on a particular protein. CONCLUSIONS: We show that there is no one scale of interest in the community structure of the yeast protein interaction network, but we can identify the range of resolution parameters that yield the most functionally coherent communities, and predict which communities are most likely to be functionally homogeneous.

Predicting protein-protein interactions in the context of protein evolution.

Here we review the methods for the prediction of protein interactions and the ideas in protein evolution that relate to them. The evolutionary assumptions implicit in many of the protein interaction prediction methods are elucidated. We draw attention to the caution needed in deploying certain evolutionary assumptions, in particular cross-organism transfer of interactions by sequence homology, and discuss the known issues in deriving interaction predictions from evidence of co-evolution. We also conject that there is evolutionary knowledge yet to be exploited in the prediction of interactions, in particular the heterogeneity of interactions, the increasing availability of interaction data from multiple species, and the models of protein interaction network growth.