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 |
Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, July 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gb-2002-3-7-comment2007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, Hua Tang |
| Abstract |
A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic research. An epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 126 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 | 16 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 92 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 113 | 90% |
| Scientists | 6 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 3% |
| Brazil | 4 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Lithuania | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 345 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 18% |
| Researcher | 62 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 43 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 85 | 23% |
| Unknown | 45 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 87 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 53 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 37 | 10% |
| Psychology | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 60 | 16% |
| Unknown | 60 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 175. 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 17 April 2024.
All research outputs
#235,476
of 25,770,491 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#81
of 4,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148
of 48,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,770,491 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,516 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 48,659 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.