| Title |
Public health implications from COGS and potential for risk stratification and screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Genetics, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ng.2582 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hilary Burton, Susmita Chowdhury, Tom Dent, Alison Hall, Nora Pashayan, Paul Pharoah |
| Abstract |
The PHG Foundation led a multidisciplinary program, which used results from COGS research identifying genetic variants associated with breast, ovarian and prostate cancers to model risk-stratified prevention for breast and prostate cancers. Implementing such strategies would require attention to the use and storage of genetic information, the development of risk assessment tools, new protocols for consent and programs of professional education and public engagement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 States | 2 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 16 May 2013.
All research outputs
#320,182
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#595
of 7,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,080
of 214,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#10
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 214,596 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.