↓ Skip to main content

Learning from Hackers: Open-Source Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Science Translational Medicine, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Learning from Hackers: Open-Source Clinical Trials
Published in
Science Translational Medicine, May 2012
DOI 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003682
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Open sharing of clinical trial data has been proposed as a way to address the gap between the production of clinical evidence and the decision-making of physicians. A similar gap was addressed in the software industry by their open-source software movement. Here, we examine how the social and technical principles of the movement can guide the growth of an open-source clinical trial community.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
Spain 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Unknown 45 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 31%
Other 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Librarian 3 6%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 15 29%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 5 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 08 March 2026.
All research outputs
#1,160,960
of 33,212,904 outputs
Outputs from Science Translational Medicine
#2,374
of 5,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,240
of 205,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Translational Medicine
#20
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,212,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 91.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 205,183 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.