↓ Skip to main content

Biobanking and international interoperability: samples

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genetics, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Biobanking and international interoperability: samples
Published in
Human Genetics, July 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00439-011-1068-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Kiehntopf, Michael Krawczak

Abstract

In terms of sample exchange, international collaborations between biobanks, or between biobanks and their research partners, have two important aspects. First, the donors' consent usually implies that the scope and purpose of any sample transfer to third parties is subject to major constraints. Since the legal, ethical and political framework of biobanking may differ substantially, even between countries of comparable jurisdictional systems, general rules for the international sharing of biomaterial are difficult, if not impossible, to define. Issues of uncertainty include the right to transfer the material, the scope of research allowed, and intellectual property rights. Since suitable means of international law enforcement may not be available in the context of biobanking, collaborators are advised to clarify any residual uncertainty by means of bilateral contracts, for example, in the form of material transfer agreements. Second, biobank partners may rightly expect that the biomaterial they receive for further analysis attains a certain level of quality. This implies that a biobank has to implement stringent quality control measures covering, in addition to the material transfer itself, the whole process of material acquisition, transport, pre-analytical handling and storage. Again, it may be advisable for biobank partners to claim contractual warranties for the type and quality of the biomaterial they wish to acquire.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
China 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 37 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Social Sciences 8 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 18%
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 29 November 2011.
All research outputs
#6,581,210
of 23,559,085 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#824
of 2,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,133
of 118,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,559,085 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 118,644 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 50% of its contemporaries.