Plastic diagnostics: The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Standard

Plastic diagnostics : The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine. / Green, Sara; Carusi, Annamaria; Hoeyer, Klaus.

In: Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 304, 112318, 2022.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Green, S, Carusi, A & Hoeyer, K 2022, 'Plastic diagnostics: The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 304, 112318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.023

APA

Green, S., Carusi, A., & Hoeyer, K. (2022). Plastic diagnostics: The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine. Social Science & Medicine, 304, [112318]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.023

Vancouver

Green S, Carusi A, Hoeyer K. Plastic diagnostics: The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine. Social Science & Medicine. 2022;304. 112318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.023

Author

Green, Sara ; Carusi, Annamaria ; Hoeyer, Klaus. / Plastic diagnostics : The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine. In: Social Science & Medicine. 2022 ; Vol. 304.

Bibtex

@article{0df381e3578d451e90de4d244308c132,
title = "Plastic diagnostics: The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine",
abstract = "Politically authorized reports on personalized and precision medicine stress an urgent need for finer-grained disease categories and faster taxonomic revision, through integration of genomic and phenotypic data. Developing a data-driven taxonomy is, however, not as simple as it sounds. It is often assumed that an integrated data infrastructure is relatively easy to implement in countries that already have highly centralized and digitalized health care systems. Our analysis of initiatives associated with the Danish National Genome Center, recently launched to bring Denmark to the forefront of personalized medicine, tells a different story. Through a “meta-taxonomy” of taxonomic revisions, we discuss what a genomics-based disease taxonomy entails, epistemically as well as organizationally. Whereas policy reports promote a vision of seamless data integration and standardization, we highlight how the envisioned strategy imposes significant changes on the organization of health care systems. Our analysis shows how persistent tensions in medicine between variation and standardization, and between change and continuity, remain obstacles for the production as well as the evaluation of genomics-based taxonomies of difference. We identify inherent conflicts between the ideal of dynamic revision and existing regulatory functions of disease categories in, for example, the organization and management of health care systems. Moreover, we raise concerns about shifts in the regulatory regime of evidence standards, where clinical care increasingly becomes a vehicle for biomedical research.",
author = "Sara Green and Annamaria Carusi and Klaus Hoeyer",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.023",
language = "English",
volume = "304",
journal = "Social Science & Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Plastic diagnostics

T2 - The remaking of disease and evidence in personalised medicine

AU - Green, Sara

AU - Carusi, Annamaria

AU - Hoeyer, Klaus

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Politically authorized reports on personalized and precision medicine stress an urgent need for finer-grained disease categories and faster taxonomic revision, through integration of genomic and phenotypic data. Developing a data-driven taxonomy is, however, not as simple as it sounds. It is often assumed that an integrated data infrastructure is relatively easy to implement in countries that already have highly centralized and digitalized health care systems. Our analysis of initiatives associated with the Danish National Genome Center, recently launched to bring Denmark to the forefront of personalized medicine, tells a different story. Through a “meta-taxonomy” of taxonomic revisions, we discuss what a genomics-based disease taxonomy entails, epistemically as well as organizationally. Whereas policy reports promote a vision of seamless data integration and standardization, we highlight how the envisioned strategy imposes significant changes on the organization of health care systems. Our analysis shows how persistent tensions in medicine between variation and standardization, and between change and continuity, remain obstacles for the production as well as the evaluation of genomics-based taxonomies of difference. We identify inherent conflicts between the ideal of dynamic revision and existing regulatory functions of disease categories in, for example, the organization and management of health care systems. Moreover, we raise concerns about shifts in the regulatory regime of evidence standards, where clinical care increasingly becomes a vehicle for biomedical research.

AB - Politically authorized reports on personalized and precision medicine stress an urgent need for finer-grained disease categories and faster taxonomic revision, through integration of genomic and phenotypic data. Developing a data-driven taxonomy is, however, not as simple as it sounds. It is often assumed that an integrated data infrastructure is relatively easy to implement in countries that already have highly centralized and digitalized health care systems. Our analysis of initiatives associated with the Danish National Genome Center, recently launched to bring Denmark to the forefront of personalized medicine, tells a different story. Through a “meta-taxonomy” of taxonomic revisions, we discuss what a genomics-based disease taxonomy entails, epistemically as well as organizationally. Whereas policy reports promote a vision of seamless data integration and standardization, we highlight how the envisioned strategy imposes significant changes on the organization of health care systems. Our analysis shows how persistent tensions in medicine between variation and standardization, and between change and continuity, remain obstacles for the production as well as the evaluation of genomics-based taxonomies of difference. We identify inherent conflicts between the ideal of dynamic revision and existing regulatory functions of disease categories in, for example, the organization and management of health care systems. Moreover, we raise concerns about shifts in the regulatory regime of evidence standards, where clinical care increasingly becomes a vehicle for biomedical research.

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.023

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.023

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31130237

VL - 304

JO - Social Science & Medicine

JF - Social Science & Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

M1 - 112318

ER -

ID: 218523302