↓ Skip to main content

Genome editing in clinical genetics: points to consider—a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
74 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Genome editing in clinical genetics: points to consider—a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1038/gim.2016.195
Pubmed ID
Authors

ACMG Board of Directors

Abstract

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other health-care providers, to help them provide quality medical genetic services. Adherence to these recommendations does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient's record the rationale for any significant deviation from these recommendations.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017Genetics in Medicine (2017); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.195.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Other 9 20%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#294,366
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#84
of 2,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,400
of 365,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#8
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,328 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 365,715 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.