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 |
Using value of information to guide evaluation of decision supports for differential diagnosis: is it time for a new look?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-105 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R Scott Braithwaite, Matthew Scotch |
| Abstract |
Decision support systems for differential diagnosis have traditionally been evaluated on the basis of criteria how sensitively and specifically they are able to identify the correct diagnosis established by expert clinicians. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 25% |
| India | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 24% |
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Librarian | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 24% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 38% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 14% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2013.
All research outputs
#7,432,447
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#762
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,544
of 198,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,982 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 198,457 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 61% of its contemporaries.