↓ Skip to main content

Researching Genetic Versus Nongenetic Determinants of Disease: A Comparison and Proposed Unification

Overview of attention for article published in Science Translational Medicine, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Researching Genetic Versus Nongenetic Determinants of Disease: A Comparison and Proposed Unification
Published in
Science Translational Medicine, November 2009
DOI 10.1126/scitranslmed.3000247
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Research standards deviate in genetic versus nongenetic epidemiology. Besides some immutable differences, such as the correlation pattern between variables, these divergent research standards can converge considerably. Current research designs that dissociate genetic and nongenetic measurements are reaching their limits. Studies are needed that massively measure genotypes, nongenetic exposures, and outcomes concurrently.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Professor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Other 20 29%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Chemistry 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 6 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,616,101
of 33,076,184 outputs
Outputs from Science Translational Medicine
#3,709
of 5,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,245
of 233,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Translational Medicine
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,076,184 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 91.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 233,495 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 64% of its contemporaries.