| Title |
Cardiovascular Precision Medicine in the Genomics Era
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Basic to Translational Science, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacbts.2018.01.003 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandra M. Dainis, Euan A. Ashley |
| Abstract |
Precision medicine strives to delineate disease using multiple data sources-from genomics to digital health metrics-in order to be more precise and accurate in our diagnoses, definitions, and treatments of disease subtypes. By defining disease at a deeper level, we can treat patients based on an understanding of the molecular underpinnings of their presentations, rather than grouping patients into broad categories with one-size-fits-all treatments. In this review, the authors examine how precision medicine, specifically that surrounding genetic testing and genetic therapeutics, has begun to make strides in both common and rare cardiovascular diseases in the clinic and the laboratory, and how these advances are beginning to enable us to more effectively define risk, diagnose disease, and deliver therapeutics for each individual patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 124 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 | 27 | 22% |
| Spain | 11 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 6 | 5% |
| Australia | 4 | 3% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Mexico | 3 | 2% |
| Argentina | 2 | 2% |
| China | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 43 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 65 | 52% |
| Scientists | 37 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 18 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 191 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 14% |
| Researcher | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 30 | 16% |
| Unknown | 49 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 43 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Unknown | 61 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. 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 16 December 2019.
All research outputs
#569,610
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Basic to Translational Science
#40
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,537
of 344,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Basic to Translational Science
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 344,720 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 90% of its contemporaries.