↓ Skip to main content

Navigating social and ethical challenges of biobanking for human microbiome research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
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.
Title
Navigating social and ethical challenges of biobanking for human microbiome research
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0160-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim H. Chuong, David M. Hwang, D. Elizabeth Tullis, Valerie J. Waters, Yvonne C. W. Yau, David S. Guttman, Kieran C. O’Doherty

Abstract

Biobanks are considered to be key infrastructures for research development and have generated a lot of debate about their ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). While the focus has been on human genomic research, rapid advances in human microbiome research further complicate the debate. We draw on two cystic fibrosis biobanks in Toronto, Canada, to illustrate our points. The biobanks have been established to facilitate sample and data sharing for research into the link between disease progression and microbial dynamics in the lungs of pediatric and adult patients. We begin by providing an overview of some of the ELSI associated with human microbiome research, particularly on the implications for the broader society. We then discuss ethical considerations regarding the identifiability of samples biobanked for human microbiome research, and examine the issue of return of results and incidental findings. We argue that, for the purposes of research ethics oversight, human microbiome research samples should be treated with the same privacy considerations as human tissues samples. We also suggest that returning individual microbiome-related findings could provide a powerful clinical tool for care management, but highlight the need for a more grounded understanding of contextual factors that may be unique to human microbiome research. We revisit the ELSI of biobanking and consider the impact that human microbiome research might have. Our discussion focuses on identifiability of human microbiome research samples, and return of research results and incidental findings for clinical management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Other 5 8%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 7 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#804,427
of 14,258,730 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#72
of 627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,026
of 377,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,258,730 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 377,309 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.