↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 38%
Engineering 3 10%
Computer Science 3 10%
Psychology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 3 10%

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
#6,019,636
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,891
of 10,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,691
of 416,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#22
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 416,446 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 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.