↓ Skip to main content

Next generation sequencing and tumor mutation profiling: are we ready for routine use in the oncology clinic?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2014
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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Next generation sequencing and tumor mutation profiling: are we ready for routine use in the oncology clinic?
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0140-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debu Tripathy, Kathleen Harnden, Kimberly Blackwell, Mark Robson

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) coupled with sophisticated bioinformatics tools yields an unprecedented amount of information regarding tumor genetics, with the potential to reveal insights into tumor behavior. NGS and other multiplex genomic assays are rapidly spilling from the laboratory into the clinic through numerous commercial and academic entities. This raises the important question as to whether we are ready to use these data in clinical decision-making. While genetic lesions are clearly targeted by a new generation of biological cancer therapies, and certain regulatory approvals are actually coupled to single gene assays, we still do not know if the vast information on other genomic alterations is worth the added cost, or even worse, the inappropriate and unproven assignment of patients to treatment with an unapproved drug carrying potentially serious side effects. On the other hand, the trend toward a precision medicine pathway is clearly accelerating, and clinical trials validating pathway-driven personalized cancer therapeutics will be necessary in both the community and academic settings. Lower cost and wider availability of NGS now raises a debate over the merit of routine tumor genome-wide analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 27%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Computer Science 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 9 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#991,742
of 25,418,993 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#695
of 4,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,602
of 243,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#15
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,418,993 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 4,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 243,181 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.