Genomics workforce views on automating genomic reanalysis: trust, equity and governance

Automation of genomic data reanalysis can increase diagnostic rates in a timely and cost-effective manner. However, implementing automated reanalysis brings with it both ethical and practical challenges. We sought to explore how clinical and laboratory staff view these challenges as part of a broader study piloting automated genomic reanalysis. Focus groups were conducted with 21 genetics health professionals recruited from a previous survey and purposively sampled from clinical genetics diagnostics services and laboratories. Participants were supportive of automating reanalysis but discussed trust and accuracy, and emphasized the need for transparency, updated phenotypic information and human checking in an automated model. Legal versus moral obligation to return results when patients are unable to be recontacted was extensively discussed. Participants held concerns about a potential legal obligation to return results arising as reanalysis becomes routine and potential for impacts on workflow. A centralized system with national governance was proposed to ensure development and implementation of an equitable service and facilitate communication between patients and genetics services. However, this may be limited by existing infrastructure and the public’s perception of government services. In conclusion, participants in this study supported automated reanalysis, however issues regarding transparency, trust and accuracy will need to be systematically addressed to support implementation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Human Genetics
Published
2026-03-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-026-02824-7
Primary Topic
Genomics and Rare Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Genomics workforce views on automating genomic reanalysis: trust, equity and governance

Emily King, Fiona Lynch, Danya Vears
Human Genetics
Genomics and Rare Diseases
article

Genomics workforce views on automating genomic reanalysis: trust, equity and governance

Emily King, Fiona Lynch, Danya Vears
article en

Abstract

Automation of genomic data reanalysis can increase diagnostic rates in a timely and cost-effective manner. However, implementing automated reanalysis brings with it both ethical and practical challenges. We sought to explore how clinical and laboratory staff view these challenges as part of a broader study piloting automated genomic reanalysis. Focus groups were conducted with 21 genetics health professionals recruited from a previous survey and purposively sampled from clinical genetics diagnostics services and laboratories. Participants were supportive of automating reanalysis but discussed trust and accuracy, and emphasized the need for transparency, updated phenotypic information and human checking in an automated model. Legal versus moral obligation to return results when patients are unable to be recontacted was extensively discussed. Participants held concerns about a potential legal obligation to return results arising as reanalysis becomes routine and potential for impacts on workflow. A centralized system with national governance was proposed to ensure development and implementation of an equitable service and facilitate communication between patients and genetics services. However, this may be limited by existing infrastructure and the public’s perception of government services. In conclusion, participants in this study supported automated reanalysis, however issues regarding transparency, trust and accuracy will need to be systematically addressed to support implementation.

Human GeneticsVol. 145(1)
Barwon Health (AU), Deakin University (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), Geelong Hospital (AU), Victorian Clinical Genetics Services (AU), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Genomics and Rare Diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.