ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Network analysis for estimating standardization trends in genomics using MEDLINE.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiotechnology in genomics, such as sequencing devices and gene quantification software, has proliferated and been applied to clinical settings. However, the lack of standards applicable to it poses practical problems in interoperability and reusability of the technology across various application domains. This study aims to visualize and identify the standard trends in clinical genomics and to suggest areas on which standardization efforts must focus.
methodsOf 16,538 articles retrieved from PubMed, published from 1975 to 2020, using search keywords "genomics and standard" and "clinical genomic sequence and standard", terms were extracted from the abstracts and titles of 15,855 articles. Our analysis includes (1) network analysis of full phases (2) period analysis with five phases; (3) statistical analysis; (4) content analysis.
resultsOur research trend showed an increasing trend from 2003, years marked by the completion of the human genome project (2003). The content analysis showed that keywords related to such concepts as gene types for analysis, and analysis techniques were increased in phase 3 when US-FDA first approved the next-generation sequencer. During 2017-2019, oncology-relevant terms were clustered and contributed to the increasing trend in phase 4 of the content analysis. In the statistical analysis, all the categories showed high regression values (R
conclusionsThrough comprehensive trend analysis from our study, we provided the trend shifts and high-demand items in standardization for clinical genetics.
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.