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 |
Digital transformation of health and care to sustain Planetary Health: The MASK proof‐of‐concept for airway diseases—POLLAR symposium under the auspices of Finland's Presidency of the EU, 2019 and MACVIA‐France, Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Diseases (GARD, WH0) demonstration project, Reference Site Collaborative Network of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Allergy, June 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13601-020-00321-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean Bousquet, Josep M. Anto, Tari Haahtela, Pekka Jousilahti, Marina Erhola, Xavier Basagaña, Wienczyslawa Czarlewski, Mikaëla Odemyr, Susanna Palkonen, Mikael Sofiev, César Velasco, Anna Bedbrook, Rodrigo Delgado, Rostislav Kouznetsov, Mika Mäkelä, Yuliia Palamarchuk, Kimmo Saarinen, Erja Tommila, Erkka Valovirta, Tuula Vasankari, Torsten Zuberbier, Isabella Annesi‐Maesano, Samuel Benveniste, Eve Mathieu‐Dupas, Jean‐Louis Pépin, Robert Picard, Stéphane Zeng, Julia Ayache, Nuria Calves Venturos, Yann Micheli, Ingrid Jullian‐Desayes, Daniel Laune |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 9% |
| Argentina | 1 | 9% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 6% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 July 2020.
All research outputs
#5,587,368
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#338
of 768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,339
of 437,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 437,168 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.