Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24710010›Full record

ArticleGenes2010

Next generation DNA sequencing and the future of genomic medicine.

Matthew W Anderson, Iris Schrijver

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Korean journal of radiology · 2020
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Metabolomics Analysis of Mesenchymal Stem Cells.International journal of molecular and cellular medicine · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Biomarkers of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: current findings.Degenerative neurological and neuromuscular disease · 2018
    Review
  16. Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Testing: IHC vs. FISH vs. NGS.Current treatment options in oncology · 2017
    Review
  17. The liquid biopsy in lung cancer.Genes & cancer · 2016
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew W AndersonDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room L235, Stanford, CA 94305-5627, USA. mwanders@stanford.edu.
Iris SchrijverDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room L235, Stanford, CA 94305-5627, USA. ischrijver@stanfordmed.org.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the years since the first complete human genome sequence was reported, there has been a rapid development of technologies to facilitate high-throughput sequence analysis of DNA (termed "next-generation" sequencing). These novel approaches to DNA sequencing offer the promise of complete genomic analysis at a cost feasible for routine clinical diagnostics. However, the ability to more thoroughly interrogate genomic sequence raises a number of important issues with regard to result interpretation, laboratory workflow, data storage, and ethical considerations. This review describes the current high-throughput sequencing platforms commercially available, and compares the inherent advantages and disadvantages of each. The potential applications for clinical diagnostics are considered, as well as the need for software and analysis tools to interpret the vast amount of data generated. Finally, we discuss the clinical and ethical implications of the wealth of genetic information generated by these methods. Despite the challenges, we anticipate that the evolution and refinement of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies will catalyze a new era of personalized medicine based on individualized genomic analysis.

Identifiers

PMID24710010
PMCPMC3960862
OpenAlexW1968230414

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.