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 |
Handling incidental findings in neuroimaging research in Japan: current state of research facilities and attitudes of investigators and the general population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-12-58 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Misao Fujita, Yoshinori Hayashi, Shimon Tashiro, Kyoko Takashima, Eisuke Nakazawa, Akira Akabayashi |
| Abstract |
To establish appropriate measures that deal with incidental findings (IFs), the neuroscience community needs to address various ethical issues. The current state of research facilities regarding IFs and investigator attitudes as well as potentially eligible research participants must be assessed prior to future discussions and before the development of policies and guidelines. To this end, we conducted two questionnaire surveys to clarify i) how IFs are addressed at neuroimaging research facilities in Japan and ii) the views of investigators and potential research participants regarding the handling of IFs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 30% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,238,443
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,199
of 1,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,679
of 254,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#19
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 254,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.