↓ Skip to main content

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Orphan Drug Development

Overview of attention for article published in Genetic Testing, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 698)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Orphan Drug Development
Published in
Genetic Testing, July 2017
DOI 10.1089/gtmb.2017.0087
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Mason, James Levenson, John Quillin

Abstract

Since the introduction of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) in 1983, orphan drug approvals in the United States have jumped from <100 per decade to over 200 per year. This growth is widely attributed to the financial incentives the ODA gives to companies that develop these medicines, and it is likely to continue for a unique reason: partnerships between pharmaceutical firms and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies. This emerging trend is the subject of this article, which begins by considering how rare-disease drugs are regulated and the rising interest in nonclinical genetic testing. It then outlines how DTC companies analyze DNA and how their techniques benefit researchers and drug developers. Then, after an overview of the current partnerships between DTCs and drug developers, it examines concerns about privacy and cost brought up by these partnerships. The article concludes by contrasting the enormous positive potential of DTC-pharma relationships and their concomitant dangers, especially to consumer privacy and cost to the healthcare system.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 21%
Social Sciences 4 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#831,975
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetic Testing
#9
of 698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,009
of 324,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetic Testing
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 698 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 324,855 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 94% of its contemporaries.
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. This one has scored higher than all of them