The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

[1]  W. Chung,et al.  ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[2]  J. Ralston,et al.  Preferences of biobank participants for receiving actionable genomic test results: results of a re-contacting study , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[3]  John A. Lynch,et al.  Returning negative results from large‐scale genomic screening: Experiences from the eMERGE III network , 2020, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[4]  A. Slonim,et al.  Population genetic screening efficiently identifies carriers of autosomal dominant diseases , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[5]  John J. Connolly,et al.  Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  K. Marsolo,et al.  Adapting Clinical Systems to Enable Adolescents' Genomic Choices , 2020, ACI Open.

[7]  Magalie S Leduc,et al.  Frequency of genomic incidental findings among 21,915 eMERGE network participants , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  Returning Results in the Genomic Era: Initial Experiences of the eMERGE Network , 2020, Journal of personalized medicine.

[9]  Lisa J. Martin,et al.  Adolescents' and Parents' Genomic Testing Decisions: Associations With Age, Race, and Sex. , 2020, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[10]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network. , 2019, American journal of human genetics.

[11]  A. Philippakis,et al.  The "All of Us" Research Program. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Heidi L. Rehm,et al.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing And Interpretation For The Emerge III Network , 2018, bioRxiv.

[13]  N. Risch,et al.  The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations. , 2018, American journal of human genetics.

[14]  S. Hurvitz,et al.  Advances in the use of PARP inhibitor therapy for breast cancer , 2018, Drugs in context.

[15]  Stephanie A Cohen,et al.  The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: Keeping up in the era of precision medicine , 2018, American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics.

[16]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  A Model for Genome-First Care: Returning Secondary Genomic Findings to Participants and Their Healthcare Providers in a Large Research Cohort , 2017, bioRxiv.

[17]  W. Chung,et al.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[18]  Diane Hauser,et al.  The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research , 2015, BMC Medical Genomics.

[19]  L. Brooks,et al.  ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  T. Sellers,et al.  Modes of delivery of genetic testing services and the uptake of cancer risk management strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers , 2014, Clinical genetics.

[21]  I. Bates,et al.  Institutionalized paternalism? Stakeholders' views on public access to genetic testing , 2006, Journal of health services research & policy.