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 |
Determining parental origin of embryo aneuploidy: analysis of genetic error observed in 305 embryos derived from anonymous donor oocyte IVF cycles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Cytogenetics, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13039-014-0068-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E Scott Sills, Xiang Li, Jane L Frederick, Charlotte D Khoury, Daniel A Potter |
| Abstract |
Since oocyte donors are typically young and believed to be a source of highly competent gametes, donor oocyte IVF is considered to be an effective treatment for diminished ovarian reserve. However, the aneuploidy rate for embryos originating from anonymously donated oocytes remains incompletely characterized. Here, comprehensive chromosomal screening results were reviewed from embryos obtained from anonymous donor-egg IVF cycles to determine both the aneuploidy rate and parental source of the genetic error. To measure this, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) data on embryos were retrospectively collated with parental DNA obtained before IVF for chromosome-specific assessments. This approach permitted mitotic and meiotic copy errors to be differentiated for each chromosome among all embryos tested, thus providing information on the parental source of embryo aneuploidy (i.e., from the anonymous egg donor vs. sperm source). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,047,933
of 24,138,997 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Cytogenetics
#4
of 412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,036
of 264,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Cytogenetics
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,138,997 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 412 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 264,864 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.