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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
What generative AI means for trust in health communications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Communications in Healthcare, November 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1080/17538068.2023.2277489 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam G. Dunn, Ivy Shih, Julie Ayre, Heiko Spallek |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACTLarge language models are fundamental technologies used in interfaces like ChatGPT and are poised to change the way people access and make sense of health information. The speed of uptake and investment suggests that these will be transformative technologies, but it is not yet clear what the implications might be for health communications. In this viewpoint, we draw on research about the adoption of new information technologies to focus on the ways that generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like large language models might change how health information is produced, what health information people see, how marketing and misinformation might be mixed with evidence, and what people trust. We conclude that transparency and explainability in this space must be carefully considered to avoid unanticipated consequences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 4 | 36% |
| United States | 3 | 27% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#4,759,897
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Communications in Healthcare
#48
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,064
of 357,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Communications in Healthcare
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 357,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 93% of its contemporaries.