↓ Skip to main content

The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2011
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 (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
57 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0029738
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirstin R. W. Matthews, Kara M. Calhoun, Nathan Lo, Vivian Ho

Abstract

In the past 30 years, the average age of biomedical researchers has steadily increased. The average age of an investigator at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from 39 to 51 between 1980 and 2008. The aging of the biomedical workforce was even more apparent when looking at first-time NIH grantees. The average age of a new investigator was 42 in 2008, compared to 36 in 1980. To determine if the rising barriers at NIH for entry in biomedical research might impact innovative ideas and research, we analyzed the research and publications of Nobel Prize winners from 1980 to 2010 to assess the age at which their pioneering research occurred. We established that in the 30-year period, 96 scientists won the Nobel Prize in medicine or chemistry for work related to biomedicine, and that their groundbreaking research was conducted at an average age of 41-one year younger than the average age of a new investigator at NIH. Furthermore, 78% of the Nobel Prize winners conducted their research before the age of 51, the average age of an NIH principal investigator. This suggested that limited access to NIH might inhibit research potential and novel projects, and could impact biomedicine and the next generation scientists in the United States.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 11%
Germany 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Sweden 1 4%
Greece 1 4%
Mexico 1 4%
Unknown 19 68%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 25%
Other 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 25%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Other 7 25%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 139. 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 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#306,971
of 25,934,224 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#4,373
of 226,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,500
of 251,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#38
of 2,948 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,934,224 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 226,374 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. 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 251,754 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 2,948 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.