| Title |
Data sharing in stem cell translational science: policy statement by the International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Regenerative Medicine, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2217/rme.15.42 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annelien L Bredenoord, Menno Mostert, Rosario Isasi, Bartha M Knoppers |
| Abstract |
Data and sample sharing constitute a scientific and ethical imperative but need to be conducted in a responsible manner in order to protect individual interests as well as maintain public trust. In 2014, the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) adopted a common Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-Related Data. The GA4GH Framework is applicable to data sharing in the stem cell field, however, interpretation is required so as to provide guidance for this specific context. In this paper, the International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party discusses those principles that are specific to translational stem cell science, including engagement, data quality and safety, privacy, security and confidentiality, risk-benefit analysis and sustainability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 29% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Regenerative Medicine
#766
of 821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,774
of 295,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regenerative Medicine
#20
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 295,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.