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 |
Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-12-16 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie M Fullerton, Sandra S-J Lee |
| Abstract |
Recent changes to regulatory guidance in the US and Europe have complicated oversight of secondary research by rendering most uses of de-identified data exempt from human subjects oversight. To identify the implications of such guidelines for harms to participants and communities, this paper explores the secondary uses of one de-identified DNA sample collection with limited oversight: the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP)-Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain, Fondation Jean Dausset (CEPH) Human Genome Diversity Panel. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 30% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 11 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 October 2011.
All research outputs
#3,777,608
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#392
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,690
of 132,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 132,765 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.