| Title |
Tracking the impact of translational research in psychiatry: state of the art and perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-5876-10-175 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rodrigo Machado-Vieira |
| Abstract |
Personalized treatments have become a primary goal in translational psychiatric research. They include the identification of neural circuits associated with psychiatric disorders and definition of treatment according to individual characteristics. Many new tools and technologies have been developed but further efforts are required to provide clues on how these scientific advances in psychiatry may be translated into more effective therapeutic approaches. Obstacles to the progress of translational psychiatry also involve numerous scientific, financial, ethical, logistics and regulatory aspects. Also, the goal of DSM-5 to expand "signs and symptoms" classification to incorporate biological measures may help the development of new multifactorial and dimensional models able to better understand the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders and develop improved treatments. Finally, a better understanding on the significant response variability, cognitive functioning, role of comorbidities and treatment-resistant cases are critical for the development of prevention and intervention strategies that are more effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 20% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 15% |
| Psychology | 9 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 September 2012.
All research outputs
#16,237,186
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,177
of 4,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,697
of 188,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#29
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 188,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.