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 |
Evaluation of common genetic variants in 82 candidate genes as risk factors for neural tube defects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Genomics, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2350-13-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Faith Pangilinan, Anne M Molloy, James L Mills, James F Troendle, Anne Parle-McDermott, Caroline Signore, Valerie B O’Leary, Peter Chines, Jessica M Seay, Kerry Geiler-Samerotte, Adam Mitchell, Julia E VanderMeer, Kristine M Krebs, Angelica Sanchez, Joshua Cornman-Homonoff, Nicole Stone, Mary Conley, Peadar N Kirke, Barry Shane, John M Scott, Lawrence C Brody |
| Abstract |
Neural tube defects (NTDs) are common birth defects (~1 in 1000 pregnancies in the US and Europe) that have complex origins, including environmental and genetic factors. A low level of maternal folate is one well-established risk factor, with maternal periconceptional folic acid supplementation reducing the occurrence of NTD pregnancies by 50-70%. Gene variants in the folate metabolic pathway (e.g., MTHFR rs1801133 (677 C > T) and MTHFD1 rs2236225 (R653Q)) have been found to increase NTD risk. We hypothesized that variants in additional folate/B12 pathway genes contribute to NTD risk. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Malta | 1 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 25% |
| Unknown | 9 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 20% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
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 14 October 2012.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#1,102
of 2,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,365
of 179,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#15
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,444 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 179,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.