| Title |
Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1212/wnl.0000000000001451 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Scott Y H Kim, Jason Karlawish, Benjamin E Berkman |
| Abstract |
Prevention trials for neurodegenerative diseases use genetic or other risk marker tests to select participants but there is concern that this could involve coercive disclosure of unwanted information. This has led some trials to use blinded enrollment (participants are tested but not told of their risk marker status). We examined the ethics of blinded vs transparent enrollment using well-established criteria for assessing the ethics of clinical research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Philippines | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 23% |
| Researcher | 15 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 32% |
| Psychology | 12 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,984,904
of 24,713,766 outputs
Outputs from Neurology
#3,859
of 20,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,975
of 264,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurology
#46
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,713,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 264,019 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 280 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.