| Title |
Ethical Issues with Newborn Screening in the Genomics Era
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annual Review of Genomics & Human Genetics, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1146/annurev-genom-090711-163741 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beth A. Tarini, Aaron J. Goldenberg |
| Abstract |
Continued technological advances have made the prospect of routine whole-genome sequencing (WGS) imminent. To date, much of the discussion about WGS has focused on its application and use in clinical medicine. Relatively little attention has been paid to the potential integration of WGS into newborn screening programs. Given the structure and scope of these programs, it is possible that the early applications of WGS will occur in state-run newborn screening programs. Assessment of the pressing ethical issues currently facing the newborn screening community will provide insight into the challenges that lie ahead in the genomics era. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 210 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 14% |
| Researcher | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 31 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 10% |
| Unknown | 52 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 25 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,017,570
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annual Review of Genomics & Human Genetics
#90
of 380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,845
of 175,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annual Review of Genomics & Human Genetics
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 175,822 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.