| Title |
Prioritizing Genomic Applications for Action by Level of Evidence: A Horizon‐Scanning Method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1038/clpt.2013.226 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
W D Dotson, M P Douglas, K Kolor, A C Stewart, M S Bowen, M Gwinn, A Wulf, H M Anders, C Q Chang, M Clyne, T K Lam, S D Schully, M Marrone, W G Feero, M J Khoury |
| Abstract |
As evidence accumulates on the use of genomic tests and other health-related applications of genomic technologies, decision makers may increasingly seek support in identifying which applications have sufficiently robust evidence to suggest they might be considered for action. As an interim working process to provide such support, we developed a horizon-scanning method that assigns genomic applications to tiers defined by availability of synthesized evidence. We illustrate an application of the method to pharmacogenomics tests. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 | 43 | 48% |
| Canada | 5 | 6% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Italy | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 47 | 53% |
| Scientists | 25 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 62 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 14 July 2023.
All research outputs
#607,187
of 25,145,981 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#66
of 4,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,554
of 231,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#2
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,145,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 231,064 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.