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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Testing the accuracy ratio of the Spatio-Temporal Epidemiological Modeler (STEM) through Ebola haemorrhagic fever outbreaks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Epidemiology & Infection, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1017/s0950268815002939 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F. BALDASSI, F. D'AMICO, M. CARESTIA, O. CENCIARELLI, S. MANCINELLI, F. GILARDI, A. MALIZIA, D. DI GIOVANNI, P. M. SOAVE, C. BELLECCI, P. GAUDIO, L. PALOMBI |
| Abstract |
Mathematical modelling is an important tool for understanding the dynamics of the spread of infectious diseases, which could be the result of a natural outbreak or of the intentional release of pathogenic biological agents. Decision makers and policymakers responsible for strategies to contain disease, prevent epidemics and fight possible bioterrorism attacks, need accurate computational tools, based on mathematical modelling, for preventing or even managing these complex situations. In this article, we tested the validity, and demonstrate the reliability, of an open-source software, the Spatio-Temporal Epidemiological Modeler (STEM), designed to help scientists and public health officials to evaluate and create models of emerging infectious diseases, analysing three real cases of Ebola haemorrhagic fever (EHF) outbreaks: Uganda (2000), Gabon (2001) and Guinea (2014). We discuss the cases analysed through the simulation results obtained with STEM in order to demonstrate the capability of this software in helping decision makers plan interventions in case of biological emergencies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 26% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology & Infection
#3,892
of 4,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,519
of 395,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology & Infection
#38
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 395,418 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.