↓ Skip to main content

ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, July 2013
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
47 tweeters
patent
5 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
659 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
876 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, July 2013
DOI 10.1038/gim.2013.92
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi L. Rehm, Sherri J. Bale, Pinar Bayrak-Toydemir, Jonathan S. Berg, Kerry K. Brown, Joshua L. Deignan, Michael J. Friez, Birgit H. Funke, Madhuri R. Hegde, Elaine Lyon

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing technologies have been and continue to be deployed in clinical laboratories, enabling rapid transformations in genomic medicine. These technologies have reduced the cost of large-scale sequencing by several orders of magnitude, and continuous advances are being made. It is now feasible to analyze an individual's near-complete exome or genome to assist in the diagnosis of a wide array of clinical scenarios. Next-generation sequencing technologies are also facilitating further advances in therapeutic decision making and disease prediction for at-risk patients. However, with rapid advances come additional challenges involving the clinical validation and use of these constantly evolving technologies and platforms in clinical laboratories. To assist clinical laboratories with the validation of next-generation sequencing methods and platforms, the ongoing monitoring of next-generation sequencing testing to ensure quality results, and the interpretation and reporting of variants found using these technologies, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has developed the following professional standards and guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 876 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 1%
United Kingdom 8 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 12 1%
Unknown 824 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 217 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 144 16%
Other 123 14%
Student > Master 111 13%
Student > Bachelor 59 7%
Other 145 17%
Unknown 77 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 264 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 238 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 156 18%
Computer Science 22 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 2%
Other 70 8%
Unknown 107 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 16 October 2019.
All research outputs
#630,899
of 17,349,416 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#231
of 2,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,506
of 166,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#3
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,349,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 166,090 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 90% of its contemporaries.