The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Should Electronic Health Record-Derived Social and Behavioral Data Be Used in Precision Medicine Research?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2018.873 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brittany Hollister, Vence L Bonham |
| Abstract |
Precision medicine research initiatives aim to use participants' electronic health records (EHRs) to obtain rich longitudinal data for large-scale precision medicine studies. Although EHRs vary widely in their inclusion and formatting of social and behavioral data, these data are essential to investigating genetic and social factors in health disparities. We explore possible biases in collecting, using, and interpreting EHR-based social and behavioral data in precision medicine research and their consequences for health equity. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 26% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Kenya | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 65% |
| Scientists | 4 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,709,165
of 26,170,895 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#810
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,496
of 349,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#30
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,170,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 349,340 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.