| Title |
Cognitive computing and eScience in health and life science research: artificial intelligence and obesity intervention programs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Information Science and Systems, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13755-017-0030-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Marshall, Tiffiany Champagne-Langabeer, Darla Castelli, Deanna Hoelscher |
| Abstract |
To present research models based on artificial intelligence and discuss the concept of cognitive computing and eScience as disruptive factors in health and life science research methodologies. The paper identifies big data as a catalyst to innovation and the development of artificial intelligence, presents a framework for computer-supported human problem solving and describes a transformation of research support models. This framework includes traditional computer support; federated cognition using machine learning and cognitive agents to augment human intelligence; and a semi-autonomous/autonomous cognitive model, based on deep machine learning, which supports eScience. The paper provides a forward view of the impact of artificial intelligence on our human-computer support and research methods in health and life science research. By augmenting or amplifying human task performance with artificial intelligence, cognitive computing and eScience research models are discussed as novel and innovative systems for developing more effective adaptive obesity intervention programs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Denmark | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 10 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 November 2017.
All research outputs
#13,498,179
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Health Information Science and Systems
#36
of 95 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,805
of 329,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Information Science and Systems
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 95 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 329,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.