↓ Skip to main content

The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Human Genetics, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 3,606)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
56 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets?
Published in
European Journal of Human Genetics, November 2012
DOI 10.1038/ejhg.2012.217
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Cook-Deegan, John M Conley, James P Evans, Daniel Vorhaus

Abstract

Sole-source business models for genetic testing can create private databases containing information vital to interpreting the clinical significance of human genetic variations. But incomplete access to those databases threatens to impede the clinical interpretation of genomic medicine. National health systems and insurers, regulators, researchers, providers and patients all have a strong interest in ensuring broad access to information about the clinical significance of variants discovered through genetic testing. They can create incentives for sharing data and interpretive algorithms in several ways, including: promoting voluntary sharing; requiring laboratories to share as a condition of payment for or regulatory approval of laboratory services; establishing - and compelling participation in - resources that capture the information needed to interpret the data independent of company policies; and paying for sharing and interpretation in addition to paying for the test itself. US policies have failed to address the data-sharing issue. The entry of new and established firms into the European genetic testing market presents an opportunity to correct this failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 5%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 107 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 23%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 9 8%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 11%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 19 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 149. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#263,899
of 24,694,993 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Human Genetics
#26
of 3,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,244
of 183,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Human Genetics
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,694,993 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 183,265 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 99% of its contemporaries.