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 |
The 10th Oxbridge varsity medical ethics debate-should we fear the rise of direct-to-consumer genetic testing?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, October 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-018-0069-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Michael Armstrong Holland, Edward Harry Arbe-Barnes, Euan Joseph McGivern, Ruairidh Mungo Connor Forgan |
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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Austria | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 27% |
| Researcher | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,022,560
of 23,109,468 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#179
of 219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,611
of 350,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,109,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 350,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.