↓ Skip to main content

Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

14 tweeters


34 Dimensions

Readers on

73 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.
Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?
Published in
Genome Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13073-017-0476-3
Pubmed ID

Patricia A. Deverka, Mary A. Majumder, Angela G. Villanueva, Margaret Anderson, Annette C. Bakker, Jessica Bardill, Eric Boerwinkle, Tania Bubela, Barbara J. Evans, Nanibaa’ A. Garrison, Richard A. Gibbs, Robert Gentleman, David Glazer, Melissa M. Goldstein, Hank Greely, Crane Harris, Bartha M. Knoppers, Barbara A. Koenig, Isaac S. Kohane, Salvatore La Rosa, John Mattison, Christopher J. O’Donnell, Arti K. Rai, Heidi L. Rehm, Laura L. Rodriguez, Robert Shelton, Tania Simoncelli, Sharon F. Terry, Michael S. Watson, John Wilbanks, Robert Cook-Deegan, Amy L. McGuire


National and international public-private partnerships, consortia, and government initiatives are underway to collect and share genomic, personal, and healthcare data on a massive scale. Ideally, these efforts will contribute to the creation of a medical information commons (MIC), a comprehensive data resource that is widely available for both research and clinical uses. Stakeholder participation is essential in clarifying goals, deepening understanding of areas of complexity, and addressing long-standing policy concerns such as privacy and security and data ownership. This article describes eight core principles proposed by a diverse group of expert stakeholders to guide the formation of a successful, sustainable MIC. These principles promote formation of an ethically sound, inclusive, participant-centric MIC and provide a framework for advancing the policy response to data-sharing opportunities and challenges.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Computer Science 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Other 25 34%
Unknown 20 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 August 2022.
All research outputs
of 22,491,736 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
of 1,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 297,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,491,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 297,859 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.