| Title |
Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Circulation, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1161/circulationaha.115.019506 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara K Pasquali, Jeffrey P Jacobs, Gregory K Farber, David Bertoch, Elizabeth D Blume, Kristin M Burns, Robert Campbell, Anthony C Chang, Wendy K Chung, Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso, Lesley H Curtis, Christopher B Forrest, William J Gaynor, Michael G Gaies, Alan S Go, Paul Henchey, Gerard R Martin, Gail Pearson, Victoria L Pemberton, Steven M Schwartz, Robert Vincent, Jonathan R Kaltman |
| Abstract |
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a working group in January 2015 to explore issues related to an integrated data network for congenital heart disease research. The overall goal was to develop a common vision for how the rapidly increasing volumes of data captured across numerous sources can be managed, integrated, and analyzed to improve care and outcomes. This report summarizes the current landscape of congenital heart disease data, data integration methodologies used across other fields, key considerations for data integration models in congenital heart disease, and the short- and long-term vision and recommendations made by the working group. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 3 | 30% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 33% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,750,864
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#9,577
of 19,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,525
of 302,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#114
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 302,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.