↓ Skip to main content

Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
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
Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?
Published in
Genome Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13073-017-0476-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia A. Deverka, Mary A. Majumder, Angela G. Villanueva, Margaret Anderson, Annette C. Bakker, Jessica Bardill, Eric Boerwinkle, Tania Bubela, Barbara J. Evans, Nanibaa’ A. Garrison, Richard A. Gibbs, Robert Gentleman, David Glazer, Melissa M. Goldstein, Hank Greely, Crane Harris, Bartha M. Knoppers, Barbara A. Koenig, Isaac S. Kohane, Salvatore La Rosa, John Mattison, Christopher J. O’Donnell, Arti K. Rai, Heidi L. Rehm, Laura L. Rodriguez, Robert Shelton, Tania Simoncelli, Sharon F. Terry, Michael S. Watson, John Wilbanks, Robert Cook-Deegan, Amy L. McGuire

Abstract

National and international public-private partnerships, consortia, and government initiatives are underway to collect and share genomic, personal, and healthcare data on a massive scale. Ideally, these efforts will contribute to the creation of a medical information commons (MIC), a comprehensive data resource that is widely available for both research and clinical uses. Stakeholder participation is essential in clarifying goals, deepening understanding of areas of complexity, and addressing long-standing policy concerns such as privacy and security and data ownership. This article describes eight core principles proposed by a diverse group of expert stakeholders to guide the formation of a successful, sustainable MIC. These principles promote formation of an ethically sound, inclusive, participant-centric MIC and provide a framework for advancing the policy response to data-sharing opportunities and challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 9 11%
Other 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Computer Science 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Other 26 31%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#5,438,139
of 25,390,970 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#1,028
of 1,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,477
of 323,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,970 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 323,815 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.