Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24627758›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2012

Low budget analysis of Direct-To-Consumer genomic testing familial data.

Gustavo Glusman, Mike Cariaso, Rafael Jimenez, Daniel Swan, Bastian Greshake, Jong Bhak, Darren W Logan, Manuel Corpas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Crowdsourcing the corpasome.Source code for biology and medicine · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gustavo GlusmanInstitute for Systems Biology, 401 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109-5234, USA.
Mike CariasoRiver Road Bio LLC, Potomac, MD 20854-3976, USA.
Rafael JimenezEuropean Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.
Daniel SwanOxford Gene Technology, Begbroke Science Park, Begbroke, Oxfordshire, OX5 1PF, UK.
Bastian GreshakeMolecular Ecology Group, Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt am Main, Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325, Germany.
Jong BhakTheragen BiO Institute, TheragenEtex Inc, AICT building, Lui-dong, Youngtong-gu, Suwon 443-370, Korea, South.
Darren W LoganWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, UK.
Manuel CorpasThe Genome Analysis Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing is a recent commercial endeavor that allows the general public to access personal genomic data. The growing availability of personal genomic data has in turn stimulated the development of non-commercial tools for DTC data analysis. Despite this new wealth of public resources, no systematic research has been carried out to assess these tools for interpretation of DTC data. Here, we provide an initial analysis benchmark in the context of a whole family, using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. Five blood-related DTC SNP chip data tests were analyzed in conjunction with one whole exome sequence. We report findings related to genomic similarity between individuals, genetic risks and an overall assessment of data quality; thus providing an evaluation of the current potential of public domain analysis tools for personal genomics. We envisage that as the use of personal genome tests spreads to the general population, publicly available tools will have a more prominent role in the interpretation of genomic data in the context of health risks and ancestry.

Identifiers

PMID24627758
PMCPMC3941016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.