Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A prospective evaluation of whole-exome sequencing as a first-tier molecular test in infants with suspected monogenic disorders

Open access
Stark, Zornitza, Tan, Tiong Y., Chong, Belinda, Brett, Gemma R., Yap, Patrick, Walsh, Maie, Yeung, Alison, Peters, Heidi, Mordaunt, Dylan, Cowie, Shannon, Amor, David J., Savarirayan, Ravi, McGillivray, George, Downie, Lilian, Ekert, Paul G., Theda, Christiane, James, Paul A., Yaplito-Lee, Joy, Ryan, Monique M., Leventer, Richard J., Creed, Emma, Macciocca, Ivan, Bell, Katrina M., Oshlack, Alicia, Sadedin, Simon, Georgeson, Peter, Anderson, Charlotte, Thorne, Natalie, Gaff, Clara, White, Susan M.·2016·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

Purpose:Concerns about patient safety and the potential for medical error are largely unexplored for genetic testing, despite the expansion of test use. In this preliminary qualitative study, we sought the views of genetics professionals about error and patient safety concerns in genomic medicine and factors that might mitigate them.Methods:Twelve semistructured interviews with experienced genetics professionals were conducted. Transcripts were analyzed using selective coding for issues related to error definition, mitigation, and communication. Additional thematic analysis captured themes across content categories.Results:Key informants suggested that the potential for adverse events exists in all phases of genetic testing, from ordering to analysis, interpretation, and follow-up. A perceived contributor was lack of physician knowledge about genetics, resulting in errors in test ordering and interpretation. The limitations and uncertainty inherent to rapidly evolving technology were also seen as contributing factors. Strategies to prevent errors included physician education, availability of genetic experts for consultation, and enhanced communication such as improved test reports and electronic decision support.Conclusion:Genetic testing poses concerns for patient safety due to errors and the limitations of current tests. As genomic tests are integrated into medical care, anticipating and addressing patient safety concerns identified by these key informants will be crucial.Genet Med 18 11, 1136–1142.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/gim.2016.1

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Stark, Z., Tan, T. Y., Chong, B., Brett, G. R., Yap, P., Walsh, M., Yeung, A., Peters, H., Mordaunt, D., Cowie, S., Amor, D. J., Savarirayan, R., McGillivray, G., Downie, L., Ekert, P. G., Theda, C., James, P. A., Yaplito-Lee, J., Ryan, M. M., Leventer, R. J., Creed, E., Macciocca, I., Bell, K. M., Oshlack, A., Sadedin, S., Georgeson, P., Anderson, C., Thorne, N., Gaff, C., & White, S. M.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
1090-1096
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2291038846
Cited by
396
References
34
FWCI
37.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A prospective evaluation of whole-exome sequencing as a first-tier molecular test in infants with suspected monogenic disorders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/gim.2016.1
The paper
Stark, Z., Tan, T. Y., Chong, B., Brett, G. R., Yap, P., Walsh, M., Yeung, A., Peters, H., Mordaunt, D., Cowie, S., Amor, D. J., Savarirayan, R., McGillivray, G., Downie, L., Ekert, P. G., Theda, C., James, P. A., Yaplito-Lee, J., Ryan, M. M., . . . White, S. M. (2016). A prospective evaluation of whole-exome sequencing as a first-tier molecular test in infants with suspected monogenic disorders. Genetics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.