↓ Skip to main content

Standards for Clinical Grade Genomic Databases

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, November 2015
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Standards for Clinical Grade Genomic Databases
Published in
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.5858/arpa.2014-0568-cp
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophia L Yohe, Alexis B Carter, John D Pfeifer, James M Crawford, Allison Cushman-Vokoun, Samuel Caughron, Debra G B Leonard

Abstract

Context .- Next-generation sequencing performed in a clinical environment must meet clinical standards, which requires reproducibility of all aspects of the testing. Clinical-grade genomic databases (CGGDs) are required to classify a variant and to assist in the professional interpretation of clinical next-generation sequencing. Applying quality laboratory standards to the reference databases used for sequence-variant interpretation presents a new challenge for validation and curation. Objectives .- To define CGGD and the categories of information contained in CGGDs and to frame recommendations for the structure and use of these databases in clinical patient care. Design .- Members of the College of American Pathologists Personalized Health Care Committee reviewed the literature and existing state of genomic databases and developed a framework for guiding CGGD development in the future. Results .- Clinical-grade genomic databases may provide different types of information. This work group defined 3 layers of information in CGGDs: clinical genomic variant repositories, genomic medical data repositories, and genomic medicine evidence databases. The layers are differentiated by the types of genomic and medical information contained and the utility in assisting with clinical interpretation of genomic variants. Clinical-grade genomic databases must meet specific standards regarding submission, curation, and retrieval of data, as well as the maintenance of privacy and security. Conclusion .- These organizing principles for CGGDs should serve as a foundation for future development of specific standards that support the use of such databases for patient care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Other 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Computer Science 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,600,264
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
#952
of 2,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,023
of 294,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
#26
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 294,808 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.