ReviewCritical reviews in eukaryotic gene expression2016
Clinical Genomics: Challenges and Opportunities.
Review in Critical reviews in eukaryotic gene expression, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the de-implementation of traditional diagnostic tests in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Rapid Multi-Omics for Bacterial Identification Using Flow Injection-Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Genomics-Driven Immunotherapy: Advancing Cancer Treatment through Personalized Approaches.Current genomics · 2025Review
- Optimal Protocols and Management of Clinical and Genomic Data Collection to Assist in the Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Congenital Anomalies.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Metabolic radiogenomics in lung cancer: associations between FDG PET image features and oncogenic signaling pathway alterations.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Radiogenomics Based on PET Imaging.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020Review
- Complex interactions between the microbiome and cancer immune therapy.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2019Review
- Rational "Error Elimination" Approach to Evaluating Molecular Barcoded Next-Generation Sequencing Data Identifies Low-Frequency Mutations in Hematologic Malignancies.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2019Article
- Implementing the VMC Specification to Reduce Ambiguity in Genomic Variant Representation.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) approaches are highly applicable to clinical studies. We review recent advances in sequencing technologies, as well as their benefits and tradeoffs, to provide an overview of clinical genomics from study design to computational analysis. Sequencing technologies enable genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic evaluations. Studies that use a combination of whole genome, exome, mRNA, and bisulfite sequencing are now feasible due to decreasing sequencing costs. Single-molecule sequencing increases read length, with the MinIONTM nanopore sequencer, which offers a uniquely portable option at a lower cost. Many of the published comparisons we review here address the challenges associated with different sequencing methods. Overall, NGS techniques, coupled with continually improving analysis algorithms, are useful for clinical studies in many realms, including cancer, chronic illness, and neurobiology. We, and others in the field, anticipate the clinical use of NGS approaches will continue to grow, especially as we shift into an era of precision medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.