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 |
Bayesian Networks Analysis of Malocclusion Data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-017-15293-w |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Scutari, Pietro Auconi, Guido Caldarelli, Lorenzo Franchi |
| Abstract |
In this paper we use Bayesian networks to determine and visualise the interactions among various Class III malocclusion maxillofacial features during growth and treatment. We start from a sample of 143 patients characterised through a series of a maximum of 21 different craniofacial features. We estimate a network model from these data and we test its consistency by verifying some commonly accepted hypotheses on the evolution of these disharmonies by means of Bayesian statistics. We show that untreated subjects develop different Class III craniofacial growth patterns as compared to patients submitted to orthodontic treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy. Among treated patients the CoA segment (the maxillary length) and the ANB angle (the antero-posterior relation of the maxilla to the mandible) seem to be the skeletal subspaces that receive the main effect of the treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 25% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 12% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 30% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,558,031
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#69,353
of 126,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,359
of 329,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,222
of 4,400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 126,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,400 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.