↓ Skip to main content

Founder mutations in Tunisia: implications for diagnosis in North Africa and Middle East

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2012
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Founder mutations in Tunisia: implications for diagnosis in North Africa and Middle East
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-7-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lilia Romdhane, Rym Kefi, Hela Azaiez, Nizar Ben Halim, Koussay Dellagi, Sonia Abdelhak

Abstract

Tunisia is a North African country of 10 million inhabitants. The native background population is Berber. However, throughout its history, Tunisia has been the site of invasions and migratory waves of allogenic populations and ethnic groups such as Phoenicians, Romans, Vandals, Arabs, Ottomans and French. Like neighbouring and Middle Eastern countries, the Tunisian population shows a relatively high rate of consanguinity and endogamy that favor expression of recessive genetic disorders at relatively high rates. Many factors could contribute to the recurrence of monogenic morbid trait expression. Among them, founder mutations that arise in one ancestral individual and diffuse through generations in isolated communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 18 27%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,524,409
of 24,586,986 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#327
of 2,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,130
of 174,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,586,986 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 174,994 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.