| Title |
Genomic Databases and Biobanks in Denmark
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1111/jlme.12316 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mette Hartlev |
| Abstract |
Biobanking in Denmark is regulated via patients' rights laws, data protection laws, and research ethics reviews. Danish law recognizes tissue samples as personal data for purposes of the data protection laws, meaning research with tissue samples may be subject to research ethics review, data protection laws, and patients' rights requirements depending on the circumstances of collection. However, research on information gained through whole genome sequencing is subject only to data protection laws, despite the similarity in the nature of the information. The regulatory framework treats biobank samples collected from patients differently than samples collected from research participants, particularly with respect to autonomy. Importantly, biobanks established for future unspecified research are not subject to research ethics review. Biobank-based research has gained more prominence on the national level recently, and the potential for a less fragmented and more consistent regulatory approach may emerge from this attention. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Denmark | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,161,280
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#15
of 15 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,980
of 531,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#369
of 508 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 531,673 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 508 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.