↓ Skip to main content

Risk stratification, genomic data and the law

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Risk stratification, genomic data and the law
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12687-018-0358-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Hall, Thomas Finnegan, Susmita Chowdhury, Tom Dent, Mark Kroese, Hilary Burton

Abstract

Risk prediction models have a key role in stratified disease prevention, and the incorporation of genomic data into these models promises more effective personalisation. Although the clinical utility of incorporating genomic data into risk prediction tools is increasingly compelling, at least for some applications and disease types, the legal and regulatory implications have not been examined and have been overshadowed by discussions about clinical and scientific utility and feasibility. We held a workshop to explore relevant legal and regulatory perspectives from four EU Member States: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. While we found no absolute prohibition on the use of such data in those tools, there are considerable challenges. Currently, these are modest and result from genomic data being classified as sensitive data under existing Data Protection regulation. However, these challenges will increase in the future following the implementation of EU Regulations on data protection which take effect in 2018, and reforms to the governance of the manufacture, development and use of in vitro diagnostic devices to be implemented in 2022. Collectively these will increase the regulatory burden placed on these products as risk stratification tools will be brought within the scope of these new Regulations. The failure to respond to the challenges posed by the use of genomic data in disease risk stratification tools could therefore prove costly to those developing and using such tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Lecturer 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 4 25%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#8,043,493
of 24,312,464 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#165
of 387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,523
of 334,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,312,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 334,721 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.