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 |
Comparison of conventional autopsy and magnetic resonance imaging in determining the cause of sudden death in the young
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1532-429x-16-44 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rajesh Puranik, Belinda Gray, Helen Lackey, Laura Yeates, Geoffrey Parker, Johan Duflou, Christopher Semsarian |
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 Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 88 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 27% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 November 2014.
All research outputs
#6,321,121
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#416
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,591
of 243,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 243,493 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.