↓ Skip to main content

Precision medicine ethics

Overview of attention for article published in Current opinion in oncology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Precision medicine ethics
Published in
Current opinion in oncology, January 2016
DOI 10.1097/cco.0000000000000247
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin N. Fiore, Kenneth W. Goodman

Abstract

In early 2015 the National Institutes of Health launched a new, national Precision Medicine Initiative with the primary goal of rapidly improving the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancers. The first-stage emphasis on oncology presents unique opportunities for clinical oncology to influence how the ethical challenges of precision medicine are to be articulated and addressed. Thus, a review of recent developments in connection with the Initiative, in particular on core ethics issues in clinical genomics, is a useful starting point. Unique ethical issues arise in precision medicine because of the enormous amounts of data generated by clinical whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing and the extent of current uncertainties with respect to data interpretations and disease associations. Among the most ethically challenging issues for clinicians are complicated informed consent processes, returning results - particularly secondary and incidental findings-and privacy and confidentiality. The first tests of precision medicine ethics in practice will be in clinical oncology, providing a rare opportunity to shape the agenda and integrate practical ethics considerations. These efforts can benefit from pre-existing research ethics analyses and recommendations from clinical and translational genetics research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 28 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Philosophy 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 35 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 December 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in oncology
#776
of 1,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,488
of 399,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in oncology
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,190 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 399,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.