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 |
Potential use of clinical polygenic risk scores in psychiatry – ethical implications and communicating high polygenic risk
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-019-0073-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. C. Palk, S. Dalvie, J. de Vries, A. R. Martin, D. J. Stein |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 42% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 53% |
| Scientists | 8 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 138 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 42 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 14% |
| Psychology | 13 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Unknown | 47 | 34% |
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 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#3,850,357
of 25,639,676 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#105
of 235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,956
of 368,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,639,676 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 235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 368,274 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.