↓ Skip to main content

The scientific assessment of combined effects of risk factors: different approaches in experimental biosciences and epidemiology

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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.
Title
The scientific assessment of combined effects of risk factors: different approaches in experimental biosciences and epidemiology
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10654-010-9464-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wolfgang Boedeker, Thomas Backhaus

Abstract

The analysis of combined effects of substances or risk factors has been a subject to science for more than a century. With different goals, combined effect analysis was addressed in almost all experimental biosciences. The major theoretical foundation can be traced back to two distinct origins. First, to the work by the pharmacologist Loewe on the concept of concentration additivity and second to the biometrician Bliss and the concept of independent action. In the search for a general solution and a unified terminology the interrelations of the concepts have extensively been studied and experimental findings reviewed. Meanwhile there seems to be consensus in experimental sciences that each concept has its role in predicting combined effect of agents and both are used for hazard und risk management. In contrast, epidemiologists describe combined effects mainly in terms of interactions in regression models. Although this approach started from a probabilistic model equivalent to the concept of independent action this origin is rarely acknowledged and effect summation is usually the preferred concept nowadays. Obscure biological meaning, the scale dependency of interaction terms as well as unavoidable residual confounding are taken as reasons why no new insights in combined effect analysis are likely to occur from epidemiology. In this paper we sketch the history of ideas and the state of the arts in combined effect analysis. We point to differences and common grounds in experimental biosciences and epidemiology.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 48%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 January 2012.
All research outputs
#7,445,163
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#771
of 1,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,626
of 94,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 94,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.