↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Misdiagnoses and the Potential for Health Disparities

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, August 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
612 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
619 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Genetic Misdiagnoses and the Potential for Health Disparities
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmsa1507092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arjun K Manrai, Birgit H Funke, Heidi L Rehm, Morten S Olesen, Bradley A Maron, Peter Szolovits, David M Margulies, Joseph Loscalzo, Isaac S Kohane

Abstract

Background For more than a decade, risk stratification for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been enhanced by targeted genetic testing. Using sequencing results, clinicians routinely assess the risk of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in a patient's relatives and diagnose the condition in patients who have ambiguous clinical presentations. However, the benefits of genetic testing come with the risk that variants may be misclassified. Methods Using publicly accessible exome data, we identified variants that have previously been considered causal in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and that are overrepresented in the general population. We studied these variants in diverse populations and reevaluated their initial ascertainments in the medical literature. We reviewed patient records at a leading genetic-testing laboratory for occurrences of these variants during the near-decade-long history of the laboratory. Results Multiple patients, all of whom were of African or unspecified ancestry, received positive reports, with variants misclassified as pathogenic on the basis of the understanding at the time of testing. Subsequently, all reported variants were recategorized as benign. The mutations that were most common in the general population were significantly more common among black Americans than among white Americans (P<0.001). Simulations showed that the inclusion of even small numbers of black Americans in control cohorts probably would have prevented these misclassifications. We identified methodologic shortcomings that contributed to these errors in the medical literature. Conclusions The misclassification of benign variants as pathogenic that we found in our study shows the need for sequencing the genomes of diverse populations, both in asymptomatic controls and the tested patient population. These results expand on current guidelines, which recommend the use of ancestry-matched controls to interpret variants. As additional populations of different ancestry backgrounds are sequenced, we expect variant reclassifications to increase, particularly for ancestry groups that have historically been less well studied. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 296 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 619 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 608 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 86 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 14%
Student > Master 72 12%
Student > Bachelor 56 9%
Other 45 7%
Other 126 20%
Unknown 149 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 137 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 130 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 10%
Computer Science 17 3%
Social Sciences 16 3%
Other 88 14%
Unknown 169 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 830. 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 19 February 2024.
All research outputs
#22,470
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#939
of 32,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#358
of 359,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#15
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 359,826 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 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 95% of its contemporaries.