| Title |
Epidemiology in wonderland: Big Data and precision medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Epidemiology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10654-018-0385-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rodolfo Saracci |
| Abstract |
Big Data and precision medicine, two major contemporary challenges for epidemiology, are critically examined from two different angles. In Part 1 Big Data collected for research purposes (Big research Data) and Big Data used for research although collected for other primary purposes (Big secondary Data) are discussed in the light of the fundamental common requirement of data validity, prevailing over "bigness". Precision medicine is treated developing the key point that high relative risks are as a rule required to make a variable or combination of variables suitable for prediction of disease occurrence, outcome or response to treatment; the commercial proliferation of allegedly predictive tests of unknown or poor validity is commented. Part 2 proposes a "wise epidemiology" approach to: (a) choosing in a context imprinted by Big Data and precision medicine-epidemiological research projects actually relevant to population health, (b) training epidemiologists, |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 2 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Ireland | 1 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
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 > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 February 2019.
All research outputs
#5,636,734
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#625
of 1,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,916
of 330,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#18
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.8. 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 330,985 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 56% of its contemporaries.