| Title |
Whole-Genome Screening of Newborns? The Constitutional Boundaries of State Newborn Screening Programs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatrics, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1542/peds.2015-3731d |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jaime S. King, Monica E. Smith |
| Abstract |
State newborn screening (NBS) programs routinely screen nearly all of the 4 million newborns in the United States each year for ∼30 primary conditions and a number of secondary conditions. NBS could be on the cusp of an unprecedented expansion as a result of advances in whole-genome sequencing (WGS). As WGS becomes cheaper and easier and as our knowledge and understanding of human genetics expand, the question of whether WGS has a role to play in state NBS programs becomes increasingly relevant and complex. As geneticists and state public health officials begin to contemplate the technical and procedural details of whether WGS could benefit existing NBS programs, this is an opportune time to revisit the legal framework of state NBS programs. In this article, we examine the constitutional underpinnings of state-mandated NBS and explore the range of current state statutes and regulations that govern the programs. We consider the legal refinements that will be needed to keep state NBS programs within constitutional bounds, focusing on 2 areas of concern: consent procedures and the criteria used to select new conditions for NBS panels. We conclude by providing options for states to consider when contemplating the use of WGS for NBS. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 210. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#182,651
of 25,138,857 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics
#936
of 18,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,970
of 405,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics
#13
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,138,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 405,655 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 99% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.