ReviewCancer research2019
Value of Collaboration among Multi-Domain Experts in Analysis of High-Throughput Genomics Data.
Review in Cancer research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Humanizing Big Data: Recognizing the Human Aspect of Big Data.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Editorial: Using Cancer 'Omics' to Understand Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Inference of Subpathway Activity Profiles Reveals Metabolism Abnormal Subpathway Regions in Glioblastoma Multiforme.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The recent explosion and ease of access to large-scale genomics data is intriguing. However, serious obstacles exist to the optimal management of the entire spectrum from data production in the laboratory through bioinformatic analysis to statistical evaluation and ultimately clinical interpretation. Beyond the multitude of technical issues, what stands out the most is the absence of adequate communication among the specialists in these domains. Successful interdisciplinary collaborations along the genomics pipeline extending from laboratory experiments to bioinformatic analyses to clinical application are notable in large scale, well managed projects such as The Cancer Genome Atlas. However, in certain settings in which the various experts perform their specialized research activities in isolation, the siloed approach to their research contributes to the generation of questionable genomic interpretations. Such situations are particularly concerning when the ultimate endpoint involves genetic/genomic interpretations that are intended for clinical applications. In spite of the fact that clinicians express interest in gaining a better understanding of clinical genomic applications, the lack of communication from upstream experts leaves them with a serious level of discomfort in applying such genomic knowledge to patient care. This discomfort is especially evident among healthcare providers who are not trained as geneticists, in particular primary care physicians. We offer some initiatives that have potential to address this problem, with emphasis on improved and ongoing communication among all the experts in these fields, constituting a comprehensive genomic "pipeline" from laboratory to patient.
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.