| Title |
Standardizing terms for clinical pharmacogenetic test results: consensus terms from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics in Medicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/gim.2016.87 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly E. Caudle, Henry M. Dunnenberger, Robert R. Freimuth, Josh F. Peterson, Jonathan D. Burlison, Michelle Whirl-Carrillo, Stuart A. Scott, Heidi L. Rehm, Marc S. Williams, Teri E. Klein, Mary V. Relling, James M. Hoffman |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 20 | 42% |
| Spain | 3 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 2% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 2% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 63% |
| Scientists | 15 | 31% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 367 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 363 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 63 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 10% |
| Other | 30 | 8% |
| Other | 58 | 16% |
| Unknown | 99 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 69 | 19% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 65 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 30 | 8% |
| Unknown | 113 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
#483,595
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#111
of 2,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,722
of 385,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#7
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 385,119 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.