You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The continuum of causality in human genetic disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-016-1107-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Katsanis |
| Abstract |
Studies of human genetic disorders have traditionally followed a reductionist paradigm. Traits are defined as Mendelian or complex based on family pedigree and population data, whereas alleles are deemed rare, common, benign, or deleterious based on their population frequencies. The availability of exome and genome data, as well as gene and allele discovery for various conditions, is beginning to challenge classic definitions of genetic causality. Here, I discuss recent advances in our understanding of the overlap between rare and complex diseases and the context-dependent effect of both rare and common alleles that underscores the need for revising the traditional categorizations of genetic traits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 29% |
| India | 4 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 8% |
| Singapore | 2 | 4% |
| Taiwan | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 2% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 47% |
| Scientists | 22 | 45% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 156 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 39 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Professor | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 54 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Unknown | 33 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,207,126
of 25,452,734 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#905
of 4,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,152
of 418,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#24
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,452,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.