↓ Skip to main content

Wastewater-Based Epidemiology of Stimulant Drugs: Functional Data Analysis Compared to Traditional Statistical Methods

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Wastewater-Based Epidemiology of Stimulant Drugs: Functional Data Analysis Compared to Traditional Statistical Methods
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0138669
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefania Salvatore, Jørgen Gustav Bramness, Malcolm J. Reid, Kevin Victor Thomas, Christopher Harman, Jo Røislien

Abstract

Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is a new methodology for estimating the drug load in a population. Simple summary statistics and specification tests have typically been used to analyze WBE data, comparing differences between weekday and weekend loads. Such standard statistical methods may, however, overlook important nuanced information in the data. In this study, we apply functional data analysis (FDA) to WBE data and compare the results to those obtained from more traditional summary measures. We analysed temporal WBE data from 42 European cities, using sewage samples collected daily for one week in March 2013. For each city, the main temporal features of two selected drugs were extracted using functional principal component (FPC) analysis, along with simpler measures such as the area under the curve (AUC). The individual cities' scores on each of the temporal FPCs were then used as outcome variables in multiple linear regression analysis with various city and country characteristics as predictors. The results were compared to those of functional analysis of variance (FANOVA). The three first FPCs explained more than 99% of the temporal variation. The first component (FPC1) represented the level of the drug load, while the second and third temporal components represented the level and the timing of a weekend peak. AUC was highly correlated with FPC1, but other temporal characteristic were not captured by the simple summary measures. FANOVA was less flexible than the FPCA-based regression, and even showed concordance results. Geographical location was the main predictor for the general level of the drug load. FDA of WBE data extracts more detailed information about drug load patterns during the week which are not identified by more traditional statistical methods. Results also suggest that regression based on FPC results is a valuable addition to FANOVA for estimating associations between temporal patterns and covariate information.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Professor 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Chemistry 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#6,291,333
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#75,683
of 194,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,292
of 274,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,739
of 5,710 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 274,417 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,710 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 68% of its contemporaries.