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 |
NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0016837 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leslie A. Gillum, Christopher Gouveia, E. Ray Dorsey, Mark Pletcher, Colin D. Mathers, Charles E. McCulloch, S. Claiborne Johnston |
| Abstract |
An analysis of NIH funding in 1996 found that the strongest predictor of funding, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), explained only 39% of the variance in funding. In 1998, Congress requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) evaluate priority-setting criteria for NIH funding; the IOM recommended greater consideration of disease burden. We examined whether the association between current burden and funding has changed since that time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 23 | 31% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Guinea | 2 | 3% |
| Sweden | 2 | 3% |
| India | 2 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Poland | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 31 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 55 | 73% |
| Scientists | 14 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 35 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 49 | 25% |
| Unknown | 29 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 8% |
| Psychology | 12 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 52 | 26% |
| Unknown | 38 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 241. 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 02 January 2024.
All research outputs
#157,513
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#2,361
of 223,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#465
of 118,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#17
of 1,363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. 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 118,290 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 1,363 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.