↓ Skip to main content

Bedside Back to Bench: Building Bridges between Basic and Clinical Genomic Research

Overview of attention for article published in Cell, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
72 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Bedside Back to Bench: Building Bridges between Basic and Clinical Genomic Research
Published in
Cell, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teri A. Manolio, Douglas M. Fowler, Lea M. Starita, Melissa A. Haendel, Daniel G. MacArthur, Leslie G. Biesecker, Elizabeth Worthey, Rex L. Chisholm, Eric D. Green, Howard J. Jacob, Howard L. McLeod, Dan Roden, Laura Lyman Rodriguez, Marc S. Williams, Gregory M. Cooper, Nancy J. Cox, Gail E. Herman, Stephen Kingsmore, Cecilia Lo, Cathleen Lutz, Calum A. MacRae, Robert L. Nussbaum, Jose M. Ordovas, Erin M. Ramos, Peter N. Robinson, Wendy S. Rubinstein, Christine Seidman, Barbara E. Stranger, Haoyi Wang, Monte Westerfield, Carol Bult

Abstract

Genome sequencing has revolutionized the diagnosis of genetic diseases. Close collaborations between basic scientists and clinical genomicists are now needed to link genetic variants with disease causation. To facilitate such collaborations, we recommend prioritizing clinically relevant genes for functional studies, developing reference variant-phenotype databases, adopting phenotype description standards, and promoting data sharing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 141 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 25%
Researcher 34 23%
Other 20 14%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 8 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 18%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Chemistry 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 16 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#189,613
of 13,459,302 outputs
Outputs from Cell
#1,174
of 14,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,274
of 262,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell
#47
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,459,302 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 14,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 262,984 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 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.