ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2016
Clinical Versus Research Sequencing.
Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the reasons for declining to participate in cancer genetics and genomic studies in the USA: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- The transition from genomics to phenomics in personalized population health.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2024Review
- Diagnosis of Taenia solium infections based on "mail order" RNA-sequencing of single tapeworm egg isolates from stool samples.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- In silico tools for accurate HLA and KIR inference from clinical sequencing data empower immunogenetics on individual-patient and population scales.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Addressing ethical and laboratory challenges for initiation of a rapid whole genome sequencing program.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Discovery through clinical sequencing in oncology.Nature cancer · 2020Review
- A systems approach to clinical oncology uses deep phenotyping to deliver personalized care.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Children's rare disease cohorts: an integrative research and clinical genomics initiative.NPJ genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Genomic Sequencing Capacity, Data Retention, and Personal Access to Raw Data in Europe.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Data sharing for clinical utility.Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2019Article
- Precision oncology: lessons learned and challenges for the future.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historically, sequencing has been the key technology to assess variation in the genetic code, and has been widely accepted in clinical diagnostics of genetic disease. The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods increased the size of the analyzed target by several orders of magnitude, while at the same time drastically reducing the cost of sequencing. Current research allows sequencing of germline and tumor whole genomes. However, with the arrival of cutting-edge technology to the clinical diagnostic field, strict regulatory oversight is required to use the advances of the latest research when applied to routine clinical practice. We discuss the differences between sequencing in a research setting and sequencing in a clinical diagnostics setting, as applied to next-generation technology.
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.