| Title |
Genome editing in clinical genetics: points to consider—a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics in Medicine, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/gim.2016.195 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
ACMG Board of Directors |
| Abstract |
Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other health-care providers, to help them provide quality medical genetic services. Adherence to these recommendations does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient's record the rationale for any significant deviation from these recommendations.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017Genetics in Medicine (2017); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.195. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 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 | 20 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 8% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Japan | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Turkey | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 44 | 62% |
| Scientists | 21 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 19% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 30 September 2021.
All research outputs
#542,223
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#140
of 2,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,742
of 422,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#5
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 422,426 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.