| Title |
Adult Genetic Risk Screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annual Review of Medicine, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1146/annurev-med-111212-144716 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Thomas Caskey, Manuel L. Gonzalez-Garay, Stacey Pereira, Amy L. McGuire |
| Abstract |
Recent advances in genetic analysis especially DNA sequencing technology open a new strategy for adult disease prevention by genetic screening. Physicians presently treat disease pathology with less emphasis on disease risk prevention/reduction. Genetic screening has reduced the incidence of untreatable childhood genetic diseases and improved the care of newborns. The opportunity exists to expand screening programs and reduce the incidence of adult onset diseases via genetic risk identification and disease intervention. This article outlines the approach, challenges, and benefits of such screening for adult genetic disease risks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| China | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
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 08 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annual Review of Medicine
#777
of 905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,850
of 227,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annual Review of Medicine
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 905 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 227,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.