↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based medicine and big genomic data.

Overview of attention for article published in Human Molecular Genetics, February 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
58 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Evidence-based medicine and big genomic data.
Published in
Human Molecular Genetics, February 2018
DOI 10.1093/hmg/ddy065
Pubmed ID
Authors

John P A Ioannidis, Muin J Khoury

Abstract

Genomic and other related big data (Big Genomic Data, BGD for short) are ushering a new era of precision medicine. This overview discusses whether principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) hold true for BGD and how they should be operationalized in the current era. Major EBM principles include the systematic identification, description and analysis of the validity and utility of BGD, the combination of individual clinical expertise with individual patient needs and preferences, and the focus on obtaining experimental evidence, whenever possible. BGD emphasize information of single patients with an overemphasis on N-of-1 trials to personalize treatment. However, large-scale comparative population data remain indispensable for meaningful translation of BGD personalized information. The impact of BGD on population health depends on its ability to affect large segments of the population. While several frameworks have been proposed to facilitate and standardize decision-making for use of genomic tests, there are new caveats that arise from BGD that extend beyond the limitations that were applicable for more simple genetic tests. Non-evidence-based use of BGD may be harmful and result in major waste of health care resources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will continue to be the strongest arbitrator for the clinical utility of genomic technologies, including BGD. Research on BGD needs to focus not only on finding robust predictive associations (clinical validity), but more importantly on evaluating the balance of health benefits and potential harms (clinical utility), as well as implementation challenges. Appropriate features of such useful research on BGD are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 15%
Computer Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 27 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,166,265
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Human Molecular Genetics
#190
of 8,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,620
of 345,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Molecular Genetics
#3
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 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 8,299 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 345,430 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 96% of its contemporaries.