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 |
Genomic screening for monogenic forms of diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-018-1012-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leslie G. Biesecker |
| Abstract |
Adult-onset, or type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a complex genetic architecture, from hundreds of genes with low penetrance, common susceptibility variants (e.g., TCF7L2), to a set of more than ten genes that, when mutated, can cause a single-gene or Mendelian form of T2DM (e.g., GCK). It is a clinical challenge to identify patients with the uncommon (2-3%) form of T2DM, typically classified as maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY). Bansal et al. (BMC Med 15:213, 2017) used a gene panel test approach to test patients with diabetes for single-gene causes of MODY. They found that nearly 2% of younger patients had pathogenic variants in one of seven genes. These data confirm prior studies showing that Mendelian or single-gene MODY can masquerade as garden variety T2DM. The implications of these results for wider general medicine and the future implementation of clinical genome sequencing are discussed.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0977-3. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 20% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,092,894
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,896
of 3,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,445
of 331,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#42
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 331,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.