↓ Skip to main content

ASBMB

Article Metrics

Plasma proteomic data can contain personally identifiable, sensitive information and incidental findings

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular and Cellular Proteomics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
43 tweeters
Title
Plasma proteomic data can contain personally identifiable, sensitive information and incidental findings
Published in
Molecular and Cellular Proteomics, January 2021
DOI 10.1074/mcp.ra120.002359
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp Emanuel Geyer, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Peter V. Treit, Matthias Mann, Philipp E. Geyer

Abstract

The goal of clinical proteomics is to identify, quantify, and characterize proteins in body fluids or tissue to assist diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients. In this way, it is similar to more mature omics technologies, such as genomics, that are increasingly applied in biomedicine. We argue that, similar to those fields, proteomics also faces ethical issues related to the kinds of information that is inherently obtained through sample measurement, although their acquisition was not the primary purpose. Specifically, we demonstrate the potential to identify individuals both by their characteristic, individual-specific protein levels and by variant peptides reporting on coding single nucleotide polymorphisms. Furthermore, it is in the nature of blood plasma proteomics profiling that it broadly reports on the health status of an individual - beyond the disease under investigation. Finally, we show that private and potentially sensitive information, such as ethnicity and pregnancy status, can increasingly be derived from proteomics data. Although this is potentially valuable not only to the individual, but also for biomedical research, it raises ethical questions similar to the incidental findings obtained through other omics technologies. We here introduce the necessity of - and argue for the desirability for - ethical and human rights-related issues to be discussed within the proteomics community. Those thoughts are more fully developed in our accompanying manuscript. Appreciation and discussion of ethical aspects of proteomic research will allow for deeper, better-informed, more diverse, and, most importantly, wiser guidelines for clinical proteomics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 16 January 2021.
All research outputs
#825,168
of 16,649,729 outputs
Outputs from Molecular and Cellular Proteomics
#82
of 2,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,380
of 308,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular and Cellular Proteomics
#2
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,649,729 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 308,937 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 92% 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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.