↓ Skip to main content

Redefining meaningful age groups in the context of disease

Overview of attention for article published in GeroScience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Redefining meaningful age groups in the context of disease
Published in
GeroScience, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11357-013-9510-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nophar Geifman, Raphael Cohen, Eitan Rubin

Abstract

Age is an important factor when considering phenotypic changes in health and disease. Currently, the use of age information in medicine is somewhat simplistic, with ages commonly being grouped into a small number of crude ranges reflecting the major stages of development and aging, such as childhood or adolescence. Here, we investigate the possibility of redefining age groups using the recently developed Age-Phenome Knowledge-base (APK) that holds over 35,000 literature-derived entries describing relationships between age and phenotype. Clustering of APK data suggests 13 new, partially overlapping, age groups. The diseases that define these groups suggest that the proposed divisions are biologically meaningful. We further show that the number of different age ranges that should be considered depends on the type of disease being evaluated. This finding was further strengthened by similar results obtained from clinical blood measurement data. The grouping of diseases that share a similar pattern of disease-related reports directly mirrors, in some cases, medical knowledge of disease-age relationships. In other cases, our results may be used to generate new and reasonable hypotheses regarding links between diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 58 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Psychology 7 5%
Computer Science 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 69 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#3,026,069
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from GeroScience
#394
of 1,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,577
of 289,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from GeroScience
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 289,543 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.