↓ Skip to main content

Section E6.5–6.8 of the ACMG technical standards and guidelines: chromosome studies of lymph node and solid tumor–acquired chromosomal abnormalities

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Section E6.5–6.8 of the ACMG technical standards and guidelines: chromosome studies of lymph node and solid tumor–acquired chromosomal abnormalities
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1038/gim.2016.51
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda D. Cooley, Cynthia C. Morton, Warren G. Sanger, Debra F. Saxe, Fady M. Mikhail

Abstract

Disclaimer: These ACMG standards and guidelines are developed primarily as an educational resource for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory genetic services. Adherence to these standards and guidelines is voluntary and does not necessarily ensure a successful medical outcome. These standards and guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinical laboratory geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinical laboratory geneticists are encouraged to document in the patient's record the rationale for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with these standards and guidelines. They also are advised to take notice of the date any particular guideline was adopted, and to consider other relevant medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Cytogenetic analysis of tumor tissue is performed to detect and characterize chromosomal aberrations to aid histopathological and clinical diagnosis and patient management. At the time of diagnosis, known recurrent clonal aberrations may facilitate histopathological diagnosis and subtyping of the tumor. This information may contribute to clinical therapeutic decisions. However, even when tumors have a known recurrent clonal aberration, each tumor is genetically unique and probably heterogeneous. It is important to discover as much about the genetics of a tumor at diagnosis as is possible with the methods available for study of the tumor material. The information gathered at initial study will inform follow-up studies, whether for residual disease detection, determination of relapse and clonal evolution, or identifying a new disease clone.This updated Section E6.5-6.8 has been incorporated into and supersedes the previous Sections E6.4 and E6.5 in Section E: Clinical Cytogenetics of the 2009 Edition (Revised 01/2010), American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories. This section deals specifically with the standards and guidelines applicable to lymph node and solid tumor chromosome analysis.Genet Med advance online publication 28 April 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.51.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#5,405,755
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#1,526
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,652
of 312,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#21
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 312,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.