↓ Skip to main content

Congenital imprinting disorders: EUCID.net - a network to decipher their aetiology and to improve the diagnostic and clinical care

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, March 2015
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Congenital imprinting disorders: EUCID.net - a network to decipher their aetiology and to improve the diagnostic and clinical care
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13148-015-0050-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Eggermann, Irène Netchine, I Karen Temple, Zeynep Tümer, David Monk, Deborah Mackay, Karin Grønskov, Andrea Riccio, Agnès Linglart, Eamonn R Maher

Abstract

Imprinting disorders (IDs) are a group of eight rare but probably underdiagnosed congenital diseases affecting growth, development and metabolism. They are caused by similar molecular changes affecting regulation, dosage or the genomic sequence of imprinted genes. Each ID is characterised by specific clinical features, and, as each appeared to be associated with specific imprinting defects, they have been widely regarded as separate entities. However, they share clinical characteristics and can show overlapping molecular alterations. Nevertheless, IDs are usually studied separately despite their common underlying (epi)genetic aetiologies, and their basic pathogenesis and long-term clinical consequences remain largely unknown. Efforts to elucidate the aetiology of IDs are currently fragmented across Europe, and standardisation of diagnostic and clinical management is lacking. The new consortium EUCID.net (European network of congenital imprinting disorders) now aims to promote better clinical care and scientific investigation of imprinting disorders by establishing a concerted multidisciplinary alliance of clinicians, researchers, patients and families. By encompassing all IDs and establishing a wide ranging and collaborative network, EUCID.net brings together a wide variety of expertise and interests to engender new collaborations and initiatives.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,690,638
of 12,434,754 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#139
of 582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,240
of 219,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#8
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,434,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 219,457 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.