| Title |
Policy recommendations for addressing privacy challenges associated with cell-based research and interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ubaka Ogbogu, Sarah Burningham, Adam Ollenberger, Kathryn Calder, Li Du, Khaled El Emam, Robyn Hyde-Lay, Rosario Isasi, Yann Joly, Ian Kerr, Bradley Malin, Michael McDonald, Steven Penney, Gayle Piat, Denis-Claude Roy, Jeremy Sugarman, Suzanne Vercauteren, Griet Verhenneman, Lori West, Timothy Caulfield |
| Abstract |
The increased use of human biological material for cell-based research and clinical interventions poses risks to the privacy of patients and donors, including the possibility of re-identification of individuals from anonymized cell lines and associated genetic data. These risks will increase as technologies and databases used for re-identification become affordable and more sophisticated. Policies that require ongoing linkage of cell lines to donors' clinical information for research and regulatory purposes, and existing practices that limit research participants' ability to control what is done with their genetic data, amplify the privacy concerns. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 | 7 | 21% |
| Canada | 6 | 18% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 58% |
| Scientists | 9 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 23 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,863,971
of 24,965,047 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#163
of 1,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,422
of 320,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,965,047 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,082 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 320,315 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 93% 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.