↓ Skip to main content

Stratified prevention: opportunities and limitations. Report on the 1st interdisciplinary cardiovascular workshop in Augsburg

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Stratified prevention: opportunities and limitations. Report on the 1st interdisciplinary cardiovascular workshop in Augsburg
Published in
Clinical Research in Cardiology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00392-017-1186-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregor Kirchhof, Josef Franz Lindner, Stephan Achenbach, Klaus Berger, Stefan Blankenberg, Heiner Fangerau, Henner Gimpel, Ulrich M. Gassner, Jens Kersten, Dorothea Magnus, Herbert Rebscher, Heribert Schunkert, Stephan Rixen, Paulus Kirchhof

Abstract

Sufficient exercise and sleep, a balanced diet, moderate alcohol consumption and a good approach to handle stress have been known as lifestyles that protect health and longevity since the Middle Age. This traditional prevention quintet, turned into a sextet by smoking cessation, has been the basis of the "preventive personality" that formed in the twentieth century. Recent analyses of big data sets including genomic and physiological measurements have unleashed novel opportunities to estimate individual health risks with unprecedented accuracy, allowing to target preventive interventions to persons at high risk and at the same time to spare those in whom preventive measures may not be needed or even be harmful. To fully grasp these opportunities for modern preventive medicine, the established healthy life styles require supplementation by stratified prevention. The opportunities of these developments for life and health contrast with justified concerns: A "surveillance society", able to predict individual behaviour based on big data, threatens individual freedom and jeopardises equality. Social insurance law and the new German Disease Prevention Act (Präventionsgesetz) rightly stress the need for research to underpin stratified prevention which is accessible to all, ethical, effective, and evidence based. An ethical and acceptable development of stratified prevention needs to start with autonomous individuals who control and understand all information pertaining to their health. This creates a mandate for lifelong health education, enabled in an individualised form by digital technology. Stratified prevention furthermore requires the evidence-based development of a new taxonomy of cardiovascular diseases that reflects disease mechanisms. Such interdisciplinary research needs broad support from society and a better use of biosamples and data sets within an updated research governance framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 31 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Psychology 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 6%
Computer Science 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 39 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,927,252
of 24,036,420 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#476
of 882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,097
of 447,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,036,420 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 882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 447,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.