| Title |
PanelApp crowdsources expert knowledge to establish consensus diagnostic gene panels
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Genetics, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41588-019-0528-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio Rueda Martin, Eleanor Williams, Rebecca E. Foulger, Sarah Leigh, Louise C. Daugherty, Olivia Niblock, Ivone U. S. Leong, Katherine R. Smith, Oleg Gerasimenko, Eik Haraldsdottir, Ellen Thomas, Richard H. Scott, Emma Baple, Arianna Tucci, Helen Brittain, Anna de Burca, Kristina Ibañez, Dalia Kasperaviciute, Damian Smedley, Mark Caulfield, Augusto Rendon, Ellen M. McDonagh |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 12 | 41% |
| United States | 5 | 17% |
| Australia | 3 | 10% |
| Spain | 3 | 10% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 14 | 48% |
| Members of the public | 14 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 306 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 15% |
| Researcher | 45 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 12% |
| Unknown | 85 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 97 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 8% |
| Unknown | 101 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 05 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,415,948
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#2,117
of 7,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,621
of 380,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#37
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 380,671 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.