↓ Skip to main content

A public resource facilitating clinical use of genomes

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2012
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
35 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
193 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 Mendeley
citeulike
10 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
A public resource facilitating clinical use of genomes
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2012
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1201904109
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madeleine P. Ball, Joseph V. Thakuria, Alexander Wait Zaranek, Tom Clegg, Abraham M. Rosenbaum, Xiaodi Wu, Misha Angrist, Jong Bhak, Jason Bobe, Matthew J. Callow, Carlos Cano, Michael F. Chou, Wendy K. Chung, Shawn M. Douglas, Preston W. Estep, Athurva Gore, Peter Hulick, Alberto Labarga, Je-Hyuk Lee, Jeantine E. Lunshof, Byung Chul Kim, Jong-Il Kim, Zhe Li, Michael F. Murray, Geoffrey B. Nilsen, Brock A. Peters, Anugraha M. Raman, Hugh Y. Rienhoff, Kimberly Robasky, Matthew T. Wheeler, Ward Vandewege, Daniel B. Vorhaus, Joyce L. Yang, Luhan Yang, John Aach, Euan A. Ashley, Radoje Drmanac, Seong-Jin Kim, Jin Billy Li, Leonid Peshkin, Christine E. Seidman, Jeong-Sun Seo, Kun Zhang, Heidi L. Rehm, George M. Church

Abstract

Rapid advances in DNA sequencing promise to enable new diagnostics and individualized therapies. Achieving personalized medicine, however, will require extensive research on highly reidentifiable, integrated datasets of genomic and health information. To assist with this, participants in the Personal Genome Project choose to forgo privacy via our institutional review board- approved "open consent" process. The contribution of public data and samples facilitates both scientific discovery and standardization of methods. We present our findings after enrollment of more than 1,800 participants, including whole-genome sequencing of 10 pilot participant genomes (the PGP-10). We introduce the Genome-Environment-Trait Evidence (GET-Evidence) system. This tool automatically processes genomes and prioritizes both published and novel variants for interpretation. In the process of reviewing the presumed healthy PGP-10 genomes, we find numerous literature references implying serious disease. Although it is sometimes impossible to rule out a late-onset effect, stringent evidence requirements can address the high rate of incidental findings. To that end we develop a peer production system for recording and organizing variant evaluations according to standard evidence guidelines, creating a public forum for reaching consensus on interpretation of clinically relevant variants. Genome analysis becomes a two-step process: using a prioritized list to record variant evaluations, then automatically sorting reviewed variants using these annotations. Genome data, health and trait information, participant samples, and variant interpretations are all shared in the public domain-we invite others to review our results using our participant samples and contribute to our interpretations. We offer our public resource and methods to further personalized medical research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 18 6%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 264 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 89 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 25%
Student > Master 21 7%
Professor 20 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 6%
Other 57 19%
Unknown 23 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 144 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 46 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 11%
Computer Science 17 6%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 23 8%
Unknown 34 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 09 March 2023.
All research outputs
#983,534
of 24,625,114 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#15,285
of 101,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,125
of 168,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#129
of 980 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,625,114 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 101,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 168,178 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 980 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.