CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Primary Care and Health OutcomesGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockDermatological and COVID-19 studies

Touch matters: COVID-19, physical examination, and 21st century general practice

Open access
de Zulueta, Paquita·2020·British Journal of General Practice
DOI 10.3399/bjgp20x713705PMC PMC7707044
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract In this paper we develop and test a method which uses high-throughput phenotypes to infer the genotypes of an individual. The inferred genotypes can then be used to perform genomic selection. Previous methods which used high-throughput phenotype data to increase the accuracy of selection assumed that the high-throughput phenotypes correlate with selection targets. When this is not the case, we show that the high-throughput phenotypes can be used to determine which haplotypes an individual inherited from their parents, and thereby infer the individual’s genotypes. We tested this method in two simulations. In the first simulation, we explored, how the accuracy of the inferred genotypes depended on the high-throughput phenotypes used and the genome of the species analysed. In the second simulation we explored whether using this method could increase genetic gain a plant breeding program by enabling genomic selection on non-genotyped individuals. In the first simulation, we found that genotype accuracy was higher if more high-throughput phenotypes were used and if those phenotypes had higher heritability. We also found that genotype accuracy decreased with an increasing size of the species genome. In the second simulation, we found that the inferred genotypes could be used to enable genomic selection on non-genotyped individuals and increase genetic gain compared to random selection, or in some scenarios phenotypic selection. This method presents a novel way for using high-throughput phenotype data in breeding programs. As the quality of high-throughput phenotypes increases and the cost decreases, this method may enable the use of genomic selection on large numbers of non-genotyped individuals.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp20x713705

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • Remote consulting excludes the physical touch on which the therapeutic relationship has traditionally depended.

    “Our findings affirmed published claims that remote consulting is cognitively burdensome (54), excludes the physical touch on which the therapeutic relationship has traditionally depended (55), threatens continuity of care (7), brings greater clinical uncertainty, and makes the personal care afforded by the extended, face-to-face “long consultation” more difficult (8, 56, 57).”

    From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [55]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Field T. Touch. 2nd edn. London: MIT Press, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
de Zulueta, P.
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Publisher
Royal College of General Practitioners
Published
2020-11-26
Volume
70
Issue
701
Pages
594-595
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
DOI
10.3399/bjgp20x713705
PMC
PMC7707044
OpenAlex
W3106927802
Cited by
22
References
17
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatological and COVID-19 studies
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, physical examination, general practice, touch, physical examination skills
MeSH terms
Professionalism, Physical Distancing, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Clinical Competence, Communicable Disease Control, Family Practice, Humans, Nonverbal Communication, Physical Examination, Physician-Patient Relations, Social Isolation, Touch, Touch Perception, General Practice

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