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 |
Human genetic research, race, ethnicity and the labeling of populations: recommendations based on an interdisciplinary workshop in Japan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-33 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasuko Takezawa, Kazuto Kato, Hiroki Oota, Timothy Caulfield, Akihiro Fujimoto, Shunwa Honda, Naoyuki Kamatani, Shoji Kawamura, Kohei Kawashima, Ryosuke Kimura, Hiromi Matsumae, Ayako Saito, Patrick E Savage, Noriko Seguchi, Keiko Shimizu, Satoshi Terao, Yumi Yamaguchi-Kabata, Akira Yasukouchi, Minoru Yoneda, Katsushi Tokunaga |
| Abstract |
A challenge in human genome research is how to describe the populations being studied. The use of improper and/or imprecise terms has the potential to both generate and reinforce prejudices and to diminish the clinical value of the research. The issue of population descriptors has not attracted enough academic attention outside North America and Europe. In January 2012, we held a two-day workshop, the first of its kind in Japan, to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue between scholars in the humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, and genetics to begin an ongoing discussion of the social and ethical issues associated with population descriptors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 13 | 19% |
| Canada | 9 | 13% |
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Thailand | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 36 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 57 | 85% |
| Scientists | 9 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 4% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 20 March 2024.
All research outputs
#959,357
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#59
of 1,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,001
of 242,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 242,545 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 19 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 94% of its contemporaries.