| Title |
Hypocrisy Around Medical Patient Data: Issues of Access for Biomedical Research, Data Quality, Usefulness for the Purpose and Omics Data as Game Changer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Asian Bioethics Review, June 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s41649-019-00085-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erwin Tantoso, Wing-Cheong Wong, Wei Hong Tay, Joanne Lee, Swati Sinha, Birgit Eisenhaber, Frank Eisenhaber |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 4 | 36% |
| Portugal | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 8 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 October 2020.
All research outputs
#4,329,686
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Asian Bioethics Review
#61
of 241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,555
of 351,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Asian Bioethics Review
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 351,125 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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.