↓ Skip to main content

Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, April 2013
DOI 10.1038/gim.2013.35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joon-Ho Yu, Seema M. Jamal, Holly K. Tabor, Michael J. Bamshad

Abstract

Researchers and clinicians face the practical and ethical challenge of if and how to offer for return the wide and varied scope of results available from individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing. We argue that rather than viewing individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing as a test for which results need to be "returned," that the technology should instead be framed as a dynamic resource of information from which results should be "managed" over the lifetime of an individual. We further suggest that individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing results management is optimized using a self-guided approach that enables individuals to self-select among results offered for return in a convenient, confidential, personalized context that is responsive to their value system. This approach respects autonomy, allows individuals to maximize potential benefits of genomic information (beneficence) and minimize potential harms (nonmaleficence), and also preserves their right to an open future to the extent they desire or think is appropriate. We describe key challenges and advantages of such a self-guided management system and offer guidance on implementation using an information systems approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 %
United States 4 5%
Brazil 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 76 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Student > Master 13 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Computer Science 5 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 11 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 10 July 2014.
All research outputs
#2,033,583
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#705
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,540
of 205,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#6
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 205,934 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.