↓ Skip to main content

Damnum versus Quaestus

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
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.
Title
Damnum versus Quaestus
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, July 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.7.imhl1-1707
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise O'Boyle

Abstract

Not only is bioethics fundamental to determining or guiding how we live and die, its role as the key interconnecting strand between various disciplines, the public, and decision makers is unique. The works featured here are from a collection entitled "Damnum versus Quaestus" (loss versus gain). They are informed by the lived experience of being with someone (described here as "the patient") as he or she lives through the process of dying.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#5,771,695
of 26,592,204 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1,375
of 2,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,436
of 333,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#36
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,592,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 333,000 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.