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 |
Methods for the de-identification of electronic health records for genomic research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Medicine, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gm239 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Khaled El Emam |
| Abstract |
Electronic health records are increasingly being linked to DNA repositories and used as a source of clinical information for genomic research. Privacy legislation in many jurisdictions, and most research ethics boards, require that either personal health information is de-identified or that patient consent or authorization is sought before the data are disclosed for secondary purposes. Here, I discuss how de-identification has been applied in current genomic research projects. Recent metrics and methods that can be used to ensure that the risk of re-identification is low and that disclosures are compliant with privacy legislation and regulations (such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule) are reviewed. Although these methods can protect against the known approaches for re-identification, residual risks and specific challenges for genomic research are also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 29 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 04 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,194,302
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#483
of 1,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,392
of 120,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 120,876 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 91% of its contemporaries.