↓ Skip to main content

Use of diverse electronic medical record systems to identify genetic risk for type 2 diabetes within a genome-wide association study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
180 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Use of diverse electronic medical record systems to identify genetic risk for type 2 diabetes within a genome-wide association study
Published in
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, March 2012
DOI 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000439
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abel N Kho, M Geoffrey Hayes, Laura Rasmussen-Torvik, Jennifer A Pacheco, William K Thompson, Loren L Armstrong, Joshua C Denny, Peggy L Peissig, Aaron W Miller, Wei-Qi Wei, Suzette J Bielinski, Christopher G Chute, Cynthia L Leibson, Gail P Jarvik, David R Crosslin, Christopher S Carlson, Katherine M Newton, Wendy A Wolf, Rex L Chisholm, William L Lowe

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) require high specificity and large numbers of subjects to identify genotype-phenotype correlations accurately. The aim of this study was to identify type 2 diabetes (T2D) cases and controls for a GWAS, using data captured through routine clinical care across five institutions using different electronic medical record (EMR) systems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 4%
Canada 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 149 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 23%
Researcher 31 19%
Student > Master 16 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 8%
Unspecified 12 8%
Other 53 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 24%
Computer Science 31 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 17%
Unspecified 19 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 9%
Other 29 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,545,153
of 13,779,708 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
#1,054
of 2,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,052
of 205,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
#17
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,779,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 205,515 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 64% of its contemporaries.