↓ Skip to main content

Technological considerations for genome-guided diagnosis and management of cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
78 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Technological considerations for genome-guided diagnosis and management of cancer
Published in
Genome Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0370-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niall J. Lennon, Viktor A. Adalsteinsson, Stacey B. Gabriel

Abstract

Technological, methodological, and analytical advances continue to improve the resolution of our view into the cancer genome, even as we discover ways to carry out analyses at greater distances from the primary tumor sites. These advances are finally making the integration of cancer genomic profiling into clinical practice feasible. Formalin fixation and paraffin embedding, which has long been the default pathological biopsy medium, is now being supplemented with liquid biopsy as a means to profile the cancer genomes of patients. At each stage of the genomic data generation process-sample collection, preservation, storage, extraction, library construction, sequencing, and variant calling-there are variables that impact the sensitivity and specificity of the analytical result and the clinical utility of the test. These variables include sample degradation, low yields of nucleic acid, and low variant allele fractions (proportions of assayed molecules carrying variant allele(s)). We review here the most common pre-analytical and analytical factors relating to routine cancer patient genome profiling, some solutions to common challenges, and the major sample preparation and sequencing technology choices available today.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 78 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Other 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Computer Science 5 6%
Engineering 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 8 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2018.
All research outputs
#949,315
of 25,067,172 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#186
of 1,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,803
of 321,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#4
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,067,172 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.