↓ Skip to main content

Clarifying questions about “risk factors”: predictors versus explanation

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 154)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
36 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
Title
Clarifying questions about “risk factors”: predictors versus explanation
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12982-018-0080-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Mary Schooling, Heidi E. Jones

Abstract

In biomedical research much effort is thought to be wasted. Recommendations for improvement have largely focused on processes and procedures. Here, we additionally suggest less ambiguity concerning the questions addressed. We clarify the distinction between two conflated concepts, prediction and explanation, both encompassed by the term "risk factor", and give methods and presentation appropriate for each. Risk prediction studies use statistical techniques to generate contextually specific data-driven models requiring a representative sample that identify people at risk of health conditions efficiently (target populations for interventions). Risk prediction studies do not necessarily include causes (targets of intervention), but may include cheap and easy to measure surrogates or biomarkers of causes. Explanatory studies, ideally embedded within an informative model of reality, assess the role of causal factors which if targeted for interventions, are likely to improve outcomes. Predictive models allow identification of people or populations at elevated disease risk enabling targeting of proven interventions acting on causal factors. Explanatory models allow identification of causal factors to target across populations to prevent disease. Ensuring a clear match of question to methods and interpretation will reduce research waste due to misinterpretation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 16%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Master 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 9 6%
Other 37 24%
Unknown 41 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 50 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,257,397
of 25,490,562 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#10
of 154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,106
of 341,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,490,562 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 341,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.