| Title |
Introduction to Bioethics Special Supplement V: Ethical Issues in Genomic Testing of Children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatrics, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1542/peds.2015-3731b |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John D. Lantos |
| Abstract |
Next-generation genome sequencing of children is one of the most promising and most challenging new technologies in pediatrics. On the one hand, it offers the hope that we will be able to diagnose rare conditions that were previously impossible to diagnose, which, in turn, might lead to new treatments. On the other hand, the technology for sequencing presents daunting problems of interpretation. It is problematic to conduct the research necessary to characterize the pathogenicity of those variants at the same time that we are using them to guide the clinical care of children who have complex medical problems. It is difficult to know how parents will deal with predictive genomic information about their children. It is also difficult to know whether genome sequencing will complement or replace more traditional methods of newborn screening. This special supplement to Pediatrics presents some early reports from researchers who are exploring both the technical issues as well as the ethical, legal, and social issues that arise when we perform genomic sequencing on newborns. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,353,264
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics
#13,696
of 16,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,873
of 393,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics
#167
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 393,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.