↓ Skip to main content

The rise of large-scale imaging studies in psychiatry

Overview of attention for article published in Giga Science, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The rise of large-scale imaging studies in psychiatry
Published in
Giga Science, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/2047-217x-3-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica A Turner

Abstract

From the initial arguments over whether 12 to 20 subjects were sufficient for an fMRI study, sample sizes in psychiatric neuroimaging studies have expanded into the tens of thousands. These large-scale imaging studies fall into several categories, each of which has specific advantages and challenges. The different study types can be grouped based on their level of control: meta-analyses, at one extreme of the spectrum, control nothing about the imaging protocol or subject selection criteria in the datasets they include, On the other hand, planned multi-site mega studies pour intense efforts into strictly having the same protocols. However, there are several other combinations possible, each of which is best used to address certain questions. The growing investment of all these studies is delivering on the promises of neuroimaging for psychiatry, and holds incredible potential for impact at the level of the individual patient. However, to realize this potential requires both standardized data-sharing efforts, so that there is more staying power in the datasets for re-use and new applications, as well as training the next generation of neuropsychiatric researchers in "Big Data" techniques in addition to traditional experimental methods. The increased access to thousands of datasets along with the needed informatics demands a new emphasis on integrative scientific methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 2 3%
France 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Singapore 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
Unknown 52 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 29%
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 17%
Psychology 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Computer Science 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#6,915,313
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Giga Science
#921
of 1,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,455
of 370,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Giga Science
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 370,611 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.