↓ Skip to main content

Genome-wide approaches for identifying genetic risk factors for osteoporosis

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
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.
Title
Genome-wide approaches for identifying genetic risk factors for osteoporosis
Published in
Genome Medicine, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/gm448
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuyan Wu, Yongjun Liu, Lei Zhang, Yingying Han, Yong Lin, Hong-Wen Deng

Abstract

Osteoporosis, the most common type of bone disease worldwide, is clinically characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD) and increased susceptibility to fracture. Multiple genetic and environmental factors and gene-environment interactions have been implicated in its pathogenesis. Osteoporosis has strong genetic determination, with the heritability of BMD estimated to be as high as 60%. More than 80 genes or genetic variants have been implicated in risk of osteoporosis by hypothesis-free genome-wide studies. However, these genes or genetic variants can only explain a small portion of BMD variation, suggesting that many other genes or genetic variants underlying osteoporosis risk await discovery. Here, we review recent progress in genome-wide studies of osteoporosis and discuss their implications for medicine and the major challenges in the field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,731,924
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#622
of 1,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,019
of 207,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 207,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 66% of its contemporaries.