↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing Provider Recruitment for Influenza Surveillance Networks

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Optimizing Provider Recruitment for Influenza Surveillance Networks
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel V. Scarpino, Nedialko B. Dimitrov, Lauren Ancel Meyers

Abstract

The increasingly complex and rapid transmission dynamics of many infectious diseases necessitates the use of new, more advanced methods for surveillance, early detection, and decision-making. Here, we demonstrate that a new method for optimizing surveillance networks can improve the quality of epidemiological information produced by typical provider-based networks. Using past surveillance and Internet search data, it determines the precise locations where providers should be enrolled. When applied to redesigning the provider-based, influenza-like-illness surveillance network (ILINet) for the state of Texas, the method identifies networks that are expected to significantly outperform the existing network with far fewer providers. This optimized network avoids informational redundancies and is thereby more effective than networks designed by conventional methods and a recently published algorithm based on maximizing population coverage. We show further that Google Flu Trends data, when incorporated into a network as a virtual provider, can enhance but not replace traditional surveillance methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 70 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 23%
Computer Science 8 11%
Mathematics 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 April 2020.
All research outputs
#14,924,665
of 25,885,333 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,202
of 9,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,960
of 174,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#57
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,885,333 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 174,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.