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 |
Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-7-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dónal P O'Mathúna |
| Abstract |
The justification for Nazi programs involving involuntary euthanasia, forced sterilisation, eugenics and human experimentation were strongly influenced by views about human dignity. The historical development of these views should be examined today because discussions of human worth and value are integral to medical ethics and bioethics. We should learn lessons from how human dignity came to be so distorted to avoid repetition of similar distortions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 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 | 13 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 9% |
| Ireland | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 59 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 94 | 94% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
| Scientists | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 27% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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 20 March 2024.
All research outputs
#517,674
of 25,808,886 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#27
of 1,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#714
of 87,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,808,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 87,207 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them