You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Medicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gm407 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gail E Henderson, R Jean Cadigan, Teresa P Edwards, Ian Conlon, Anders G Nelson, James P Evans, Arlene M Davis, Catherine Zimmer, Bryan J Weiner |
| Abstract |
Effective translational biomedical research hinges on the operation of 'biobanks,' repositories that assemble, store, and manage collections of human specimens and related data. Some are established intentionally to address particular research needs; many, however, have arisen opportunistically, in a variety of settings and with a variety of expectations regarding their functions and longevity. Despite their rising prominence, little is known about how biobanks are organized and function beyond simple classification systems (government, academia, industry). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 7 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Singapore | 1 | 3% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 62% |
| Scientists | 8 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 29 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 21% |
| Unknown | 33 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 102. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#382,741
of 24,155,398 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#65
of 1,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,926
of 288,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#5
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,155,398 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 1,495 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 288,436 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 93% of its contemporaries.