RT @KTJohansen: Good news for patients: @TheACMG endorses full CFTR sequencing for CF carrier screening. Full sequencing more effectively d…
RT @KTJohansen: Good news for patients: @TheACMG endorses full CFTR sequencing for CF carrier screening. Full sequencing more effectively d…
Good news for patients: @TheACMG endorses full CFTR sequencing for CF carrier screening. Full sequencing more effectively detects carriers across all ethnicities. https://t.co/3etTP5E5Dv
RT @KylaDunn5: Can we just agree and move on: Limiting any medically-relevant genetic test to mere “genotyping” for a handful of variants i…
Article: Sequencing as a first-line methodology for cystic fibrosis carrier screening #NGS #cysticfibrosis #becausescienceishard https://t.co/b8YWJ3Mb7p https://t.co/kGw3KAet6p
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @SeppalaEija: We have incorporated the CNV detrction to NGS - single test can cover these both! https://t.co/KtYetMcqgQ
RT @KTJohansen: Current guidelines fall short: screening for only 23 common CFTR variants misses more than 30% of at-risk couples. Full seq…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
Amazing work by an outstanding team!! @KTJohansen you are a rock 💫
We have incorporated the CNV detrction to NGS - single test can cover these both!
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
Can we just agree and move on: Limiting any medically-relevant genetic test to mere “genotyping” for a handful of variants is irresponsible and insufficient in the era of NGS + CNV analysis. (I’m looking at you, @23andMe.)
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
Current guidelines fall short: screening for only 23 common CFTR variants misses more than 30% of at-risk couples. Full sequencing with careful variant interpretation better serves patients. Great work by Kyle Beauchamp and @MyrWomensHealth!
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
RT @GIMJournal: Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses no…
Limiting screening for CF to 23 common variants missed more than 30% of at-risk couples. NGS + CNV identification misses none #openaccess #cysticfibrosis https://t.co/GU6JIXMcvD https://t.co/ddUNxlrUts
Comparing genotyping 23 variants, with NGS of CFTR and NGS + CNV as a first-line methodology for cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Limiting screening does not improve clinical validity or utility, but reduces detection rate. @GIMJournal https://t.co/tqLA
Sequencing as a first-line methodology for cystic fibrosis carrier screening https://t.co/zEuQPFoBdm https://t.co/mQda00bSYL
Sequencing as a first-line methodology for cystic fibrosis carrier screening. https://t.co/cGmiaGxCO1
RT @MuinJKhoury: Assessing the performance of genome sequencing-based screening for Cystic Fibrosis relative to genotyping, in terms of ana…
RT @MuinJKhoury: Assessing the performance of genome sequencing-based screening for Cystic Fibrosis relative to genotyping, in terms of ana…
RT @MuinJKhoury: Assessing the performance of genome sequencing-based screening for Cystic Fibrosis relative to genotyping, in terms of ana…
RT @MuinJKhoury: Assessing the performance of genome sequencing-based screening for Cystic Fibrosis relative to genotyping, in terms of ana…
RT @MuinJKhoury: Assessing the performance of genome sequencing-based screening for Cystic Fibrosis relative to genotyping, in terms of ana…
Assessing the performance of genome sequencing-based screening for Cystic Fibrosis relative to genotyping, in terms of analytical validity, clinical validity, clinical impact, and clinical utility. Via @GIMJournal https://t.co/OMU06mno2O https://t.co/dkFdB