↓ Skip to main content

Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?
Published in
Genome Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13073-017-0476-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia A. Deverka, Mary A. Majumder, Angela G. Villanueva, Margaret Anderson, Annette C. Bakker, Jessica Bardill, Eric Boerwinkle, Tania Bubela, Barbara J. Evans, Nanibaa’ A. Garrison, Richard A. Gibbs, Robert Gentleman, David Glazer, Melissa M. Goldstein, Hank Greely, Crane Harris, Bartha M. Knoppers, Barbara A. Koenig, Isaac S. Kohane, Salvatore La Rosa, John Mattison, Christopher J. O’Donnell, Arti K. Rai, Heidi L. Rehm, Laura L. Rodriguez, Robert Shelton, Tania Simoncelli, Sharon F. Terry, Michael S. Watson, John Wilbanks, Robert Cook-Deegan, Amy L. McGuire

Abstract

National and international public-private partnerships, consortia, and government initiatives are underway to collect and share genomic, personal, and healthcare data on a massive scale. Ideally, these efforts will contribute to the creation of a medical information commons (MIC), a comprehensive data resource that is widely available for both research and clinical uses. Stakeholder participation is essential in clarifying goals, deepening understanding of areas of complexity, and addressing long-standing policy concerns such as privacy and security and data ownership. This article describes eight core principles proposed by a diverse group of expert stakeholders to guide the formation of a successful, sustainable MIC. These principles promote formation of an ethically sound, inclusive, participant-centric MIC and provide a framework for advancing the policy response to data-sharing opportunities and challenges.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Other 27 35%
Unknown 20 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,951,314
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#806
of 1,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,168
of 318,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 318,615 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 77% 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 is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.