| Title |
Great Expectations: Autism Spectrum Disorder and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Technologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-014-9497-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily Yang Liu, Christopher Thomas Scott |
| Abstract |
New applications of iPSC technology to research on complex idiopathic conditions raise several important ethical and social considerations for potential research participants and their families. In this short review, we examine these issues through the lens of emerging research on autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We begin by describing the current state of iPSC technology in research on ASD. Then we discuss how the social history of and current controversies in autism research combined with the emergence of autism-specific iPSC biobanks indicate an urgent need for researchers to clearly communicate the limitations and possibilities of iPSC research to ensure research participants have the ability to provide fully informed, voluntary consent. We conclude by offering recommendations to bolster informed consent for research involving iPSC biobanks, both in the specific context of ASD and more broadly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 6 | 40% |
| Canada | 2 | 13% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 7% |
| Sweden | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 47% |
| Scientists | 6 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 15% |
| Psychology | 8 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 17 July 2014.
All research outputs
#3,391,637
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#93
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,434
of 324,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 324,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.