Despite strong pharmacological support, association studies using genotype-predicted phenotype as a variable have yielded conflicting or inconclusive evidence to promote personalized pharmacotherapy. Unless the patient is a genotypic poor metabolizer, imputation of patient's metabolic capacity (or metabolic phenotype), a major factor in drug exposure-related clinical response, is a complex and highly challenging task because of limited number of alleles interrogated, population-specific differences in allele frequencies, allele-specific substrate-selectivity and importantly, phenoconversion mediated by co-medications and inflammatory co-morbidities that modulate the functional activity of drug metabolizing enzymes. Furthermore, metabolic phenotype and clinical outcomes are not binary functions; there is large intragenotypic and intraindividual variability. Therefore, the ability of association studies to identify relationships between genotype and clinical outcomes can be greatly enhanced by determining phenotype measures of study participants and/or by therapeutic drug monitoring to correlate drug concentrations with genotype and actual metabolic phenotype. To facilitate improved analysis and reporting of association studies, we propose acronyms with the prefixes ‘g’ (genotype-predicted phenotype) and ‘m’ (measured metabolic phenotype) to better describe this important variable of the study subjects. Inclusion of actually measured metabolic phenotype, and when appropriate therapeutic drug monitoring, promises to reveal relationships that may not be detected by using genotype alone as the variable.