| Title |
Knowledge integration at the center of genomic medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics in Medicine, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1038/gim.2012.43 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Muin J. Khoury, Marta Gwinn, W. David Dotson, Sheri D. Schully |
| Abstract |
Three articles in this issue of Genetics in Medicine describe examples of "knowledge integration," involving methods for generating and synthesizing rapidly emerging information on health-related genomic technologies and engaging stakeholders around the evidence. Knowledge integration, the central process in translating genomic research, involves three closely related, iterative components: knowledge management, knowledge synthesis, and knowledge translation. Knowledge management is the ongoing process of obtaining, organizing, and displaying evolving evidence. For example, horizon scanning and "infoveillance" use emerging technologies to scan databases, registries, publications, and cyberspace for information on genomic applications. Knowledge synthesis is the process of conducting systematic reviews using a priori rules of evidence. For example, methods including meta-analysis, decision analysis, and modeling can be used to combine information from basic, clinical, and population research. Knowledge translation refers to stakeholder engagement and brokering to influence policy, guidelines and recommendations, as well as the research agenda to close knowledge gaps. The ultrarapid production of information requires adequate public and private resources for knowledge integration to support the evidence-based development of genomic medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 | 9 | 45% |
| Canada | 2 | 10% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 55% |
| Scientists | 6 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Librarian | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,009,296
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#1,029
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,773
of 175,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 175,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.