↓ Skip to main content

When genomic medicine reveals misattributed genetic relationships—the debate about disclosure revisited

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, June 2018
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
40 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
When genomic medicine reveals misattributed genetic relationships—the debate about disclosure revisited
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41436-018-0023-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. F. Wright, M. Parker, A. M. Lucassen

Abstract

Accidental discovery of misattributed parentage is an age-old problem in clinical medicine, but the ability to detect it routinely has increased recently as a result of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies coupled with family sequencing studies. Problems arise at the clinical-research boundary, where policies and consent forms guaranteeing nondisclosure may conflict with standard clinical care. To examine the challenges of managing misattributed parentage within hybrid translational research studies, we used a case study of a developmentally delayed child with a candidate variant found through a large-scale trio genome sequencing study in which data from unrelated samples were routinely excluded. We discuss whether genetic parentage should be explicitly confirmed during clinical validation, thus giving greater weight to the diagnosis according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics variant interpretation guidelines, and what tensions this approach would create. We recommend that the possibility of finding and disclosing misattributed parentage should be addressed during the consent or pretest counseling process, and that clinical relevance should determine whether or not to disclose results in the clinic. This proposition has implications for research governance, and implies that it may not always be possible to uphold nondisclosure commitments as investigations move from research to clinical care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Other 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,091,919
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#325
of 2,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,631
of 341,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#13
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,945 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 88% 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 341,958 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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.