Genetics in Medicine Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: American College of Medical Genetics, Nature Publishing Group

Journal description

As a respected part of the genetics community, Genetics in Medicine is a must read for all those applying new genetic findings to their practice. Genetics in Medicine is devoted to the broad clinical application of genetics, and outstanding editorial content and uniqueness make it a necessary acquisition for all clinicians and institutional libraries. Topics covered in the journal include clinical genetics, biochemical genetics, cytogenetics, molecular genetics, common disease genetics, genetic counseling and legal updates and genetics legacies.

Current impact factor: 7.33

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 7.329
2013 Impact Factor 6.435
2012 Impact Factor 5.56
2011 Impact Factor 4.762
2010 Impact Factor 5.28
2009 Impact Factor 3.922
2008 Impact Factor 3.716
2007 Impact Factor 3.318
2006 Impact Factor 3.427
2005 Impact Factor 3.082
2004 Impact Factor 3.805
2003 Impact Factor 3.679
2002 Impact Factor 2.645
2001 Impact Factor 1.933
2000 Impact Factor 1.128
1999 Impact Factor 3.714

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 6.40
Cited half-life 4.10
Immediacy index 1.43
Eigenfactor 0.03
Article influence 2.82
Website Genetics in Medicine website
Other titles Genetics in medicine, Genetics medicine
ISSN 1098-3600
OCLC 38569047
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

Nature Publishing Group

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 6 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Authors retain copyright
    • Published source must be acknowledged and DOI cited
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • On author's personal website and institutional repository
    • If funding agency rules apply, authors may post authors version to their relevant funding body's archive, 6 months after publication
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Nature Publishing Group'
  • Classification

Publications in this journal

  • Genetics in Medicine 11/2015; DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.151
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests have been proposed for use in the detection of, and prediction of risk for, prostate cancer and as prognostic indicator in affected men. A systematic review was undertaken to address three research questions to evaluate the analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, and prognostic validity of SNP-based panels. Methods: Data sources comprised MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE; these were searched from inception to April 2013. The gray-literature searches included contact with manufacturers. Eligible studies included English-language studies evaluating commercially available SNP panels. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Results: Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria. All focused on clinical validity and evaluated 18 individual panels with 2 to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability (overall area under receiver-operator characteristic curves, 58-74%; incremental gain resulting from inclusion of SNP data, 2.5-11%) for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies, as assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools, was moderate. Conclusion: The evidence on currently available SNP panels is insufficient to assess analytic validity, and at best the panels assessed would add a small and clinically unimportant improvement to factors such as age and family history in risk stratification (clinical validity). No evidence on the clinical utility of current panels is available.Genet Med advance online publication 01 October 2015Genetics in Medicine (2015); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.125.
    Genetics in Medicine 10/2015; DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.125

  • Genetics in Medicine 09/2015;

  • Genetics in Medicine 09/2015;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Familial pancreatic cancer kindreds contain at least two affected first-degree relatives. Comprehensive data are needed to assist clinical risk assessment and genetic testing. Methods: Germ-line DNA samples from 727 unrelated probands with positive family history (521 met criteria for familial pancreatic cancer) were tested in compliance with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (including analysis of deletions and rearrangements), PALB2, and CDKN2A. We compared prevalence of deleterious mutations between familial pancreatic cancer probands and nonfamilial pancreatic cancer probands (kindreds containing at least two affected biological relatives, but not first-degree relatives). We also examined the impact of family history on breast and ovarian cancers and melanoma. Results: Prevalence of deleterious mutations (excluding variants of unknown significance) among familial pancreatic cancer probands was: BRCA1, 1.2%; BRCA2, 3.7%; PALB2, 0.6%; and CDKN2A, 2.5%. Four novel deleterious mutations were detected. Familial pancreatic cancer probands carry more mutations in the four genes (8.0%) than nonfamilial pancreatic cancer probands (3.5%) (odds ratio: 2.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-5.44; P = 0.03). The probability of testing positive for deleterious mutations in any of the four genes ranges up to 10.4%, depending on family history of cancers. BRCA2 and CDKN2A account for the majority of mutations in familial pancreatic cancer. Conclusion: Genetic testing of multiple relevant genes in probands with a positive family history is warranted, particularly for familial pancreatic cancer.
    Genetics in Medicine 07/2015; 17(7):569-577. DOI:10.1038/gim.2014.153
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical genetics services. Adherence to these recommendations does not necessarily ensure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, geneticists and other clinicians should apply their own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient’s record the rationale for any significant deviation from these recommendations. Genet Med advance online publication 23 July 2015
    Genetics in Medicine 07/2015; DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.94

  • Genetics in Medicine 05/2015; 17(5):424-425. DOI:10.1038/gim.2014.159

  • Genetics in Medicine 04/2015; 17(4):316-318. DOI:10.1038/gim.2014.155
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Experimental treatment with substrate replacement was successfully performed in single cases with molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. The objective of this study was to quantitate the yet undefined natural history in untreated patients to ultimately benefit knowledge in experimental treatments in the future. Methods: Systematic analysis of published cases with molybdenum cofactor deficiency. The main outcome measures were survival, initial cardinal disease features at onset, and diagnostic delay. Results: The median survival for the overall population was 36 months. Initial cardinal disease features at onset were seizures (72%) as well as feeding difficulties (26%) and hypotonia (11%). In addition, developmental delay (9%), hemiplegia (2%), lens dislocation (2%), and hyperreflexia (1%) were reported. The median age at onset of the disease was the first day of life; the median age at diagnosis was 4.5 months. The median time to diagnosis (diagnostic delay) was 89 days. Conclusion: Molybdenum cofactor deficiency has its onset during the neonatal period and infancy. There is considerable diagnostic delay. Although seizures were the most frequent initial cardinal sign, molybdenum cofactor deficiency should be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with hypotonia, developmental delay, or feeding difficulties. The survival data will inform further natural-history and therapeutic studies.
    Genetics in Medicine 03/2015; advance online publication. DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.12
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with recombinant human acid α-glucosidase (rhGAA) prolongs survival in infantile Pompe disease (IPD). However, the majority of cross-reactive immunologic material (CRIM)-negative (CN) patients have immune responses with significant clinical decline despite continued ERT. We aimed to characterize immune responses in CN patients with IPD receiving ERT monotherapy. Methods: A chart review identified 20 CN patients with IPD treated with ERT monotherapy for ≥6 months. Patients were stratified by anti-rhGAA antibody titers: high sustained antibody titers (HSAT; ≥51,200) at least twice; low titers (LT; <6,400) throughout treatment; or sustained intermediate titers (SIT; 6,400-25,600). Results: Despite early initiation of treatment, the majority (85%) of CN patients developed significant antibody titers, most with HSAT associated with invasive ventilation and death. Nearly all patients with HSAT had at least one nonsense GAA mutation, whereas the LT group exclusively carried splice-site or frameshift mutations. Only one patient in the HSAT group is currently alive after successful immune modulation in the entrenched setting. Conclusion: Immunological responses are a significant risk in CN IPD; thus induction of immune tolerance in the naive setting should strongly be considered. Further exploration of factors influencing immune responses is required, particularly with the advent of newborn screening for Pompe disease.Genet Med 17 11, 912-918.
    Genetics in Medicine 03/2015; DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.6

  • Genetics in Medicine 03/2015; 17(3):242-242. DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.1