Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Central dogma: The clinical view - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

Central dogma: The clinical view - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences From the point of view of patient care, your recent debate over classical genetics[1-3] makes it clear that any form of current classical one-by-one gene status assessment will not be adequately informative to assess an actual patient's genetic risks. Before there were tests to identify specific genetic mutations, cancer geneticists relied primarily on cancer family pedigrees, and interrelated family pedigrees, to suggest the cancer-risk status of an individual. These interconnected family cancer pedigrees were in effect a dynamic system-wide read-out of the outcome cancer-risk status of that individual, accommodating the actual vast variability and uncertainty inherent in the genetic expression as Goodman et al. have outlined.[2] Remarkably this old corpus of interconnected family pedigree information may be just the "new" data form we seek to address the recognized enormous complexity, if not molecular uncertainty, in an individual's genetic profile. We have demonstrated that one can apply a normative-model-driven form of predictive data mining applications to a universe of family cancer pedigrees and showed that one "predictive" outcome could be patterns of cancer syndromes that are extractable from such data.[4] In addition, by gathering numerous pedigrees of patients with a specific clinical/hereditary disease state and subjecting the verified clinical http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Scientist The Scientist

Central dogma: The clinical view - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

The Scientist , Volume 19 (16): 9 – Aug 29, 2005

Central dogma: The clinical view - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

The Scientist , Volume 19 (16): 9 – Aug 29, 2005

Abstract

From the point of view of patient care, your recent debate over classical genetics[1-3] makes it clear that any form of current classical one-by-one gene status assessment will not be adequately informative to assess an actual patient's genetic risks. Before there were tests to identify specific genetic mutations, cancer geneticists relied primarily on cancer family pedigrees, and interrelated family pedigrees, to suggest the cancer-risk status of an individual. These interconnected family cancer pedigrees were in effect a dynamic system-wide read-out of the outcome cancer-risk status of that individual, accommodating the actual vast variability and uncertainty inherent in the genetic expression as Goodman et al. have outlined.[2] Remarkably this old corpus of interconnected family pedigree information may be just the "new" data form we seek to address the recognized enormous complexity, if not molecular uncertainty, in an individual's genetic profile. We have demonstrated that one can apply a normative-model-driven form of predictive data mining applications to a universe of family cancer pedigrees and showed that one "predictive" outcome could be patterns of cancer syndromes that are extractable from such data.[4] In addition, by gathering numerous pedigrees of patients with a specific clinical/hereditary disease state and subjecting the verified clinical

Loading next page...
 
/lp/the-scientist/central-dogma-the-clinical-view-the-scientist-magazine-of-the-life-NROIzkTpRS

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
The Scientist
Copyright
© 1986-2010 The Scientist
ISSN
1759-796X
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

From the point of view of patient care, your recent debate over classical genetics[1-3] makes it clear that any form of current classical one-by-one gene status assessment will not be adequately informative to assess an actual patient's genetic risks. Before there were tests to identify specific genetic mutations, cancer geneticists relied primarily on cancer family pedigrees, and interrelated family pedigrees, to suggest the cancer-risk status of an individual. These interconnected family cancer pedigrees were in effect a dynamic system-wide read-out of the outcome cancer-risk status of that individual, accommodating the actual vast variability and uncertainty inherent in the genetic expression as Goodman et al. have outlined.[2] Remarkably this old corpus of interconnected family pedigree information may be just the "new" data form we seek to address the recognized enormous complexity, if not molecular uncertainty, in an individual's genetic profile. We have demonstrated that one can apply a normative-model-driven form of predictive data mining applications to a universe of family cancer pedigrees and showed that one "predictive" outcome could be patterns of cancer syndromes that are extractable from such data.[4] In addition, by gathering numerous pedigrees of patients with a specific clinical/hereditary disease state and subjecting the verified clinical

Journal

The ScientistThe Scientist

Published: Aug 29, 2005

There are no references for this article.