↓ Skip to main content

#InSituPathologists: how the #USCAP2015 meeting went viral on Twitter and founded the social media movement for the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology

Overview of attention for article published in Modern Pathology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 1,895)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
159 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
#InSituPathologists: how the #USCAP2015 meeting went viral on Twitter and founded the social media movement for the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology
Published in
Modern Pathology, January 2017
DOI 10.1038/modpathol.2016.223
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Cohen, Timothy Craig Allen, Serdar Balci, Philip T Cagle, Julie Teruya-Feldstein, Samson W Fine, Dibson D Gondim, Jennifer L Hunt, Jack Jacob, Kimberly Jewett, Xiaoyin ‘Sara’ Jiang, Keith J Kaplan, Ibrahim Kulac, Rashna Meunier, Nicole D Riddle, Patrick S Rush, Jennifer Stall, Lauren N Stuart, David Terrano, Ed Uthman, Matthew J Wasco, Sean R Williamson, Roseann I Wu, Jerad M Gardner

Abstract

Professional medical conferences over the past five years have seen an enormous increase in the use of Twitter in real-time, also known as "live-tweeting". At the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) 2015 annual meeting, 24 attendees (the authors) volunteered to participate in a live-tweet group, the #InSituPathologists. This group, along with other attendees, kept the world updated via Twitter about the happenings at the annual meeting. There were 6,524 #USCAP2015 tweets made by 662 individual Twitter users; these generated 5,869,323 unique impressions (potential tweet-views) over a 13-day time span encompassing the dates of the annual meeting. Herein we document the successful implementation of the first official USCAP annual meeting live-tweet group, including the pros/cons of live-tweeting and other experiences of the original #InSituPathologists group members. No prior peer-reviewed publications to our knowledge have described in depth the use of an organized group to "live-tweet" a pathology meeting. We believe our group to be the first of its kind in the field of pathology.Modern Pathology advance online publication, 13 January 2017; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2016.223.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 159 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 26%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 26%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 79%
Unspecified 3 16%
Engineering 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. 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 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#118,585
of 12,268,566 outputs
Outputs from Modern Pathology
#5
of 1,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,834
of 335,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Modern Pathology
#1
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,268,566 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 1,895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 335,600 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 98% of its contemporaries.