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 |
What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-55 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sebastian Schleidgen, Corinna Klingler, Teresa Bertram, Wolf H Rogowski, Georg Marckmann |
| Abstract |
Recently, individualized or personalized medicine (PM) has become a buzz word in the academic as well as public debate surrounding health care. However, PM lacks a clear definition and is open to interpretation. This conceptual vagueness complicates public discourse on chances, risks and limits of PM. Furthermore, stakeholders might use it to further their respective interests and preferences. For these reasons it is important to have a shared understanding of PM. In this paper, we present a sufficiently precise as well as adequate definition of PM with the potential of wide acceptance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 6 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 14% |
| Germany | 3 | 10% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 52% |
| Scientists | 10 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Iceland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 254 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 47 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 45 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 11% |
| Other | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 41 | 15% |
| Unknown | 43 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 88 | 33% |
| Unknown | 58 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,658,907
of 25,455,127 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#132
of 1,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,226
of 320,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,455,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 320,857 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 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.