| Title |
The development of large-scale de-identified biomedical databases in the age of genomics—principles and challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Genomics, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40246-018-0147-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fida K. Dankar, Andrey Ptitsyn, Samar K. Dankar |
| Abstract |
Contemporary biomedical databases include a wide range of information types from various observational and instrumental sources. Among the most important features that unite biomedical databases across the field are high volume of information and high potential to cause damage through data corruption, loss of performance, and loss of patient privacy. Thus, issues of data governance and privacy protection are essential for the construction of data depositories for biomedical research and healthcare. In this paper, we discuss various challenges of data governance in the context of population genome projects. The various challenges along with best practices and current research efforts are discussed through the steps of data collection, storage, sharing, analysis, and knowledge dissemination. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 36% |
| United States | 3 | 27% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 10 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 09 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,286,906
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#60
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,608
of 343,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 343,274 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.