↓ Skip to main content

Professional responsibilities regarding the provision, publication, and dissemination of patient phenotypes in the context of clinical genetic and genomic testing: points to consider—a statement of…

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Professional responsibilities regarding the provision, publication, and dissemination of patient phenotypes in the context of clinical genetic and genomic testing: points to consider—a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1038/gim.2017.242
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn W Bush, Anita E Beck, Leslie G Biesecker, James P Evans, Ada Hamosh, Ingrid A Holm, Christa L Martin, C Sue Richards, Heidi L Rehm

Abstract

Disclaimer: This Points to Consider document is designed as an educational resource to provide best practices for medical genetic clinicians, laboratories, and journals regarding the provision, publication, and dissemination of patient phenotypes in the context of genomic testing, clinical genetic practice, and research. While the goal of the document is the improvement of patient care, the considerations and practices described should not be considered inclusive of all proper considerations and practices or exclusive of others that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same goal. In determining the value of any practice, clinicians, laboratories, and journals should apply their own professional standards and judgment to the specific circumstances presented.The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the authors' affiliated institutions.GENETICS in MEDICINE advance online publication, 11 January 2018; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.242.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Professor 5 16%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 26%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,448,710
of 17,436,984 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#1,549
of 2,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,349
of 374,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#38
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,436,984 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 374,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.