↓ Skip to main content

Predicting the future risk of lung cancer: development, and internal and external validation of the CanPredict (lung) model in 19·67 million people and evaluation of model performance against seven…

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 2,923)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
161 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
46 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Predicting the future risk of lung cancer: development, and internal and external validation of the CanPredict (lung) model in 19·67 million people and evaluation of model performance against seven other risk prediction models
Published in
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, April 2023
DOI 10.1016/s2213-2600(23)00050-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weiqi Liao, Carol A C Coupland, Judith Burchardt, David R Baldwin, DART initiative, Fergus Gleeson, David Baldwin, George Batchkala, James Buchanan, Judith Burchardt, Rohan Chakraborty, Ravi Chana, Yan Chen, Carol Coupland, Charles Crichton, Jim Davies, Anand Devaraj, Mengran Fan, Julia Hippisley-Cox, Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova, Richard Lee, Weiqi Liao, Arjun Nair, Lyndsey Pickup, Anne Powell, Jens Rittscher, Amied Shadmaan, Kandavel Shanmugam, Elizabeth Stokes, Clare Verrill, Johnathan Watkins, Sarah Wordsworth, Fergus V Gleeson, Julia Hippisley-Cox

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Unspecified 5 8%
Lecturer 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 29 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Unspecified 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 34 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1221. 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 16 October 2023.
All research outputs
#11,905
of 26,107,266 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#33
of 2,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#364
of 428,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#2
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,107,266 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 428,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.