↓ Skip to main content

Using ROC Curves to Choose Minimally Important Change Thresholds when Sensitivity and Specificity Are Valued Equally: The Forgotten Lesson of Pythagoras. Theoretical Considerations and an Example…

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Using ROC Curves to Choose Minimally Important Change Thresholds when Sensitivity and Specificity Are Valued Equally: The Forgotten Lesson of Pythagoras. Theoretical Considerations and an Example Application of Change in Health Status
Published in
PLoS ONE, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0114468
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Froud, Gary Abel

Abstract

Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves are being used to identify Minimally Important Change (MIC) thresholds on scales that measure a change in health status. In quasi-continuous patient reported outcome measures, such as those that measure changes in chronic diseases with variable clinical trajectories, sensitivity and specificity are often valued equally. Notwithstanding methodologists agreeing that these should be valued equally, different approaches have been taken to estimating MIC thresholds using ROC curves.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
Israel 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 49%
Unspecified 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#138,814
of 13,714,094 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#2,772
of 144,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,968
of 299,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#80
of 2,685 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,714,094 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 144,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 299,422 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,685 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 97% of its contemporaries.