↓ Skip to main content

Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 1,036)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
twitter
150 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
576 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
707 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Cancer
Published in
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, January 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marilyn M. Li, Michael Datto, Eric J. Duncavage, Shashikant Kulkarni, Neal I. Lindeman, Somak Roy, Apostolia M. Tsimberidou, Cindy L. Vnencak-Jones, Daynna J. Wolff, Anas Younes, Marina N. Nikiforova

Abstract

Widespread clinical laboratory implementation of next-generation sequencing-based cancer testing has highlighted the importance and potential benefits of standardizing the interpretation and reporting of molecular results among laboratories. A multidisciplinary working group tasked to assess the current status of next-generation sequencing-based cancer testing and establish standardized consensus classification, annotation, interpretation, and reporting conventions for somatic sequence variants was convened by the Association for Molecular Pathology with liaison representation from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. On the basis of the results of professional surveys, literature review, and the Working Group's subject matter expert consensus, a four-tiered system to categorize somatic sequence variations based on their clinical significances is proposed: tier I, variants with strong clinical significance; tier II, variants with potential clinical significance; tier III, variants of unknown clinical significance; and tier IV, variants deemed benign or likely benign. Cancer genomics is a rapidly evolving field; therefore, the clinical significance of any variant in therapy, diagnosis, or prognosis should be reevaluated on an ongoing basis. Reporting of genomic variants should follow standard nomenclature, with testing method and limitations clearly described. Clinical recommendations should be concise and correlate with histological and clinical findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 150 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 707 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 703 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 170 24%
Other 101 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 13%
Student > Master 73 10%
Student > Postgraduate 37 5%
Other 109 15%
Unknown 128 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 219 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 159 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 105 15%
Computer Science 23 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 1%
Other 40 6%
Unknown 153 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 184. 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 19 March 2021.
All research outputs
#119,387
of 17,641,103 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
#10
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,387
of 398,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,641,103 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 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 398,250 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.