↓ Skip to main content

“Bridge to the Literature”? Third‐Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 1,219)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
“Bridge to the Literature”? Third‐Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10897-018-0217-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah C. Nelson, Stephanie M. Fullerton

Abstract

Patients and health care consumers can obtain access to their "raw," or uninterpreted, genetic data from direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, researchers, or providers and pursue self-directed analysis via third-party interpretation tools. Yet relatively little is known about the nature of currently available interpretation tools or the motivations of tool developers. We conducted a structured content analysis of 23 third-party interpretation tool websites and supporting information, tracking features such as types of information returned, modes of generating and presenting that information, and privacy and security measures. We additionally conducted qualitative interviews with a subset of 10 tool developers. A majority of tools (16 of 23, or 70%) offer some type of health or wellness-related information, often extracted from publicly available variant annotation databases. Half of those interviewed characterized their activities as "bridging" users to the scientific literature rather than interpretation, for which they gave a variety of scientific, ethical, and regulatory justifications. The scale, heterogeneity, and complexity of information available from third-party interpretation are unprecedented. While developers aim to enlighten and empower tool users, interpretation-free "bridging" to rapidly evolving databases may instead impose burdens on genetic counselors and other health care providers asked to provide further contextualization and explanation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 24%
Researcher 9 22%
Other 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Social Sciences 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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 07 January 2022.
All research outputs
#471,098
of 24,187,394 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#7
of 1,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,965
of 445,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,187,394 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 1,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 445,283 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 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.