↓ Skip to main content

Utilizing electronic health records to predict acute kidney injury risk and outcomes: workgroup statements from the 15th ADQI Consensus Conference

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
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
Utilizing electronic health records to predict acute kidney injury risk and outcomes: workgroup statements from the 15th ADQI Consensus Conference
Published in
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40697-016-0099-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott M. Sutherland, Lakhmir S. Chawla, Sandra L. Kane-Gill, Raymond K. Hsu, Andrew A. Kramer, Stuart L. Goldstein, John A. Kellum, Claudio Ronco, Sean M. Bagshaw, on behalf of the 15 ADQI Consensus Group

Abstract

The data contained within the electronic health record (EHR) is "big" from the standpoint of volume, velocity, and variety. These circumstances and the pervasive trend towards EHR adoption have sparked interest in applying big data predictive analytic techniques to EHR data. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a condition well suited to prediction and risk forecasting; not only does the consensus definition for AKI allow temporal anchoring of events, but no treatments exist once AKI develops, underscoring the importance of early identification and prevention. The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) convened a group of key opinion leaders and stakeholders to consider how best to approach AKI research and care in the "Big Data" era. This manuscript addresses the core elements of AKI risk prediction and outlines potential pathways and processes. We describe AKI prediction targets, feature selection, model development, and data display.

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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 31%
Computer Science 17 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Engineering 9 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 25 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#8,474,037
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#313
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,441
of 312,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 312,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.