The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
Timeline
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Social Media in Radiology: Early Trends in Twitter Microblogging at Radiology's Largest International Meeting
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of the American College of Radiology, October 2013
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.07.015 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
C. Matthew Hawkins, Richard Duszak, James V. Rawson |
Abstract |
Twitter is a social media microblogging platform that allows rapid exchange of information between individuals. Despite its widespread acceptance and use at various other medical specialty meetings, there are no published data evaluating its use at radiology meetings. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the use of Twitter as a microblogging platform at recent RSNA annual meetings. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 40 | 63% |
Canada | 2 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
Zimbabwe | 1 | 2% |
Austria | 1 | 2% |
Norway | 1 | 2% |
South Africa | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 16 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 36 | 56% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 25% |
Scientists | 9 | 14% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | 5% |
Spain | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Mauritius | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 93 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
Other | 10 | 10% |
Researcher | 10 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 10% |
Other | 32 | 30% |
Unknown | 17 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 37% |
Social Sciences | 13 | 12% |
Computer Science | 12 | 11% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 10% |
Unknown | 20 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 29 March 2017.
All research outputs
#768,674
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#125
of 3,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,681
of 224,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#1
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 224,556 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.