↓ Skip to main content

Neuroethics, confidentiality, and a cultural imperative in early onset Alzheimer disease: a case study with a First Nation population

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, October 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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Neuroethics, confidentiality, and a cultural imperative in early onset Alzheimer disease: a case study with a First Nation population
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-8-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaun Stevenson, B Lynn Beattie, Richard Vedan, Emily Dwosh, Lindsey Bruce, Judy Illes

Abstract

The meaningful consideration of cultural practices, values and beliefs is a necessary component in the effective translation of advancements in neuroscience to clinical practice and public discourse. Society's immense investment in biomedical science and technology, in conjunction with an increasingly diverse socio-cultural landscape, necessitates the study of how potential discoveries in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer disease are perceived and utilized across cultures. Building on the work of neuroscientists, ethicists and philosophers, we argue that the growing field of neuroethics provides a pragmatic and constructive pathway to guide advancements in neuroscience in a manner that is culturally nuanced and relevant. Here we review a case study of one issue in culturally oriented neuroscience research where it is evident that traditional research ethics must be broadened and the values and needs of diverse populations considered for meaningful and relevant research practices. A global approach to neuroethics has the potential to furnish critical engagement with cultural considerations of advancements in neuroscience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 13 26%
Unknown 8 16%
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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,397,305
of 23,172,045 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#71
of 219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,029
of 211,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,172,045 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 219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 211,717 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.