↓ Skip to main content

The Problem with Big Data: Operating on Smaller Datasets to Bridge the Implementation Gap

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
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 Problem with Big Data: Operating on Smaller Datasets to Bridge the Implementation Gap
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00248
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard P. Mann, Faisal Mushtaq, Alan D. White, Gabriel Mata-Cervantes, Tom Pike, Dalton Coker, Stuart Murdoch, Tim Hiles, Clare Smith, David Berridge, Suzanne Hinchliffe, Geoff Hall, Stephen Smye, Richard M. Wilkie, J. Peter A. Lodge, Mark Mon-Williams

Abstract

Big datasets have the potential to revolutionize public health. However, there is a mismatch between the political and scientific optimism surrounding big data and the public's perception of its benefit. We suggest a systematic and concerted emphasis on developing models derived from smaller datasets to illustrate to the public how big data can produce tangible benefits in the long term. In order to highlight the immediate value of a small data approach, we produced a proof-of-concept model predicting hospital length of stay. The results demonstrate that existing small datasets can be used to create models that generate a reasonable prediction, facilitating health-care delivery. We propose that greater attention (and funding) needs to be directed toward the utilization of existing information resources in parallel with current efforts to create and exploit "big data."

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Other 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Engineering 2 11%
Computer Science 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 5 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,264,184
of 10,432,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#310
of 1,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,028
of 254,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#11
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,432,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 254,963 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.