Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27284505›Full record

ReviewApplied & translational genomics2014

Medical genomics: The intricate path from genetic variant identification to clinical interpretation.

B Quintáns, A Ordóñez-Ugalde, P Cacheiro, A Carracedo, M J Sobrido

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applied & translational genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The landscape of tolerated genetic variation in humans and primates.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Genetic Variations and Precision Medicine.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

B QuintánsFundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Centro para Investigación Biomédica en red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain.
A Ordóñez-UgaldeFundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
P CacheiroFundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
A CarracedoFundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Centro para Investigación Biomédica en red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain; Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
M J SobridoFundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Centro para Investigación Biomédica en red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of medical genomics involves translating high throughput genetic methods to the clinic, in order to improve diagnostic efficiency and treatment decision making. Technical questions related to sample enrichment, sequencing methodologies and variant identification and calling algorithms, still need careful investigation in order to validate the analytical step of next generation sequencing techniques for clinical applications. However, the main foreseeable challenge will be interpreting the clinical significance of the variants observed in a given patient, as well as their significance for family members and for other patients. Every step in the variant interpretation process has limitations and difficulties, and its quote of contribution to false positive and false negative results. There is no single piece of evidence enough on its own to make firm conclusions on the pathogenicity and disease causality of a given variant. A plethora of automated analysis software tools is being developed that will enhance efficiency and accuracy. However a risk of misinterpretation could derive from biased biorepository content, facilitated by annotation of variant functional consequences using previous datasets stored in the same or linked repositories. In order to improve variant interpretation and avoid an exponential accumulation of confounding noise in the medical literature, the use of terms in a standard way should be sought and requested when reporting genetic variants and their consequences. Generally, stepwise and linear interpretation processes are likely to overrate some pieces of evidence while underscoring others. Algorithms are needed that allow a multidimensional, parallel analysis of diverse lines of evidence to be carried out by expert teams for specific genes, cellular pathways or disorders.

Indexed as

Clinical significanceFamily co-segregationGenetic variantInformatics pipelineInterpretation challengePathogenicity assessment

Identifiers

PMID27284505
PMCPMC4887840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.