| Title |
Current clinical use of polygenic scores will risk exacerbating health disparities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
bioRxiv, October 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1101/441261 |
| Authors |
Alicia R. Martin, Masahiro Kanai, Yoichiro Kamatani, Yukinori Okada, Benjamin M. Neale, Mark J. Daly |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 283 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 | 64 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 16 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 7 | 2% |
| Germany | 5 | 2% |
| France | 4 | 1% |
| Finland | 4 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 158 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 139 | 49% |
| Members of the public | 130 | 46% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 128 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 18% |
| Researcher | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 52 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 194. 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 27 August 2021.
All research outputs
#214,679
of 26,237,895 outputs
Outputs from bioRxiv
#99
of 8,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,235
of 360,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from bioRxiv
#2
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,237,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 360,627 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 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.