The success (or not) of HUGO nomenclature
Open accessAbstract
Current usage of gene nomenclature is ambiguous and impairs the efficient handling of scientific information. Therefore it is important to propose guidelines to deal with this problem. This study attempts to evaluate the success of HUGO nomenclature for human genes. The results indicate that HUGO guidelines are not supported by the scientific community.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Inconsistent gene nomenclature and opaque numeric ncRNA and circular RNA identifiers further add to the apparent numbers of human genes and transcripts that can be studied and combined.
“Inconsistent gene nomenclature (75) and opaque numeric ncRNA and circular RNA identifiers (56,76) further add to the apparent numbers of human genes and transcripts that can be studied and combined.”
From Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills (2022) · cites this paper as [75]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 52
- Authors
- Tamames
- Venue
- Genome biology
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 402
- ISSN
- 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1779514
- OpenAlex
- W2150252713
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Genome biology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Fundación BBVA
- Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anatomy › Medical and Biological Sciences
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- gene nomenclature, nomenclature guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Genes, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Guidelines as Topic
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
