↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in the 24 cancer genes of the ACMG Secondary Findings v2.0 list in a large cancer cohort and ethnicity-matched controls

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, December 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in the 24 cancer genes of the ACMG Secondary Findings v2.0 list in a large cancer cohort and ethnicity-matched controls
Published in
Genome Medicine, December 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13073-018-0607-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jung Kim, Wen Luo, Mingyi Wang, Talia Wegman-Ostrosky, Megan N. Frone, Jennifer J. Johnston, Michael L. Nickerson, Melissa Rotunno, Shengchao A. Li, Maria I. Achatz, Seth A. Brodie, Michael Dean, Kelvin C. de Andrade, Fernanda P. Fortes, Matthew Gianferante, Payal Khincha, Mary L. McMaster, Lisa J. McReynolds, Alexander Pemov, Maisa Pinheiro, Karina M. Santiago, Blanche P. Alter, Neil E. Caporaso, Shahinaz M. Gadalla, Lynn R. Goldin, Mark H. Greene, Jennifer Loud, Xiaohong R. Yang, Neal D. Freedman, Susan M. Gapstur, Mia M. Gaudet, Donato Calista, Paola Ghiorzo, Maria Concetta Fargnoli, Eduardo Nagore, Ketty Peris, Susana Puig, Maria Teresa Landi, Belynda Hicks, Bin Zhu, Jia Liu, Joshua N. Sampson, Stephen J. Chanock, Lisa J. Mirabello, Lindsay M. Morton, Leslie G. Biesecker, Margaret A. Tucker, Sharon A. Savage, Alisa M. Goldstein, Douglas R. Stewart

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Other 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 29%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,356,196
of 25,233,554 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#739
of 1,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,524
of 449,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,233,554 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 449,479 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 53% of its contemporaries.