| Title |
Pragmatic and Ethical Challenges of Incorporating the Genome into the Electronic Health Record
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Genetic Medicine Reports, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40142-014-0051-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam A. Nishimura, Peter Tarczy-Hornoch, Brian H. Shirts |
| Abstract |
Recent successes in the use of gene sequencing for patient care highlight the potential of genomic medicine. For genomics to become a part of usual care, pertinent elements of a patient's genomic test must be communicated to the most appropriate care providers. Electronic medical records may serve as a useful tool for storing and disseminating genomic data. Yet, the structure of existing EMRs and the nature of genomic data pose a number of pragmatic and ethical challenges in their integration. Through a review of the recent genome-EMR integration literature, we explore concrete examples of these challenges, categorized under four key questions: What data will we store? How will we store it? How will we use it? How will we protect it? We conclude that genome-EMR integration requires a rigorous, multi-faceted and interdisciplinary approach of study. Problems facing the field are numerous, but few are intractable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 21% |
| France | 3 | 16% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Serbia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 53% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 21% |
| Engineering | 5 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,182,961
of 24,224,854 outputs
Outputs from Current Genetic Medicine Reports
#17
of 119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,187
of 240,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Genetic Medicine Reports
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,224,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 119 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 240,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 99% of its contemporaries.