↓ Skip to main content

Submitted for Your Consideration: Potential Advantages of a Novel Clinical Trial Design and Initial Patient Reaction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Submitted for Your Consideration: Potential Advantages of a Novel Clinical Trial Design and Initial Patient Reaction
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2012.00145
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Shane Loop, Alexis C. Frazier-Wood, Amy S. Thomas, Emily J. Dhurandhar, James M. Shikany, Gary L. Gadbury, David B. Allison

Abstract

In many circumstances, individuals do not respond identically to the same treatment. This phenomenon, which is called treatment response heterogeneity (TRH), appears to be present in treatments for many conditions, including obesity. Estimating the total amount of TRH, predicting an individual's response, and identifying the mediators of TRH are of interest to biomedical researchers. Clinical investigators and physicians commonly postulate that some of these mediators could be genetic. Current designs can estimate TRH as a function of specific, measurable observed factors; however, they cannot estimate the total amount of TRH, nor provide reliable estimates of individual persons' responses. We propose a new repeated randomizations design (RRD), which can be conceived as a generalization of the Balaam design, that would allow estimates of that variability and facilitate estimation of the total amount of TRH, prediction of an individual's response, and identification of the mediators of TRH. In a pilot study, we asked 118 subjects entering a weight loss trial for their opinion of the RRD, and they stated a preference for the RRD over the conventional two-arm parallel groups design. Research is needed as to how the RRD will work in practice and its relative statistical properties, and we invite dialog about it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Arts and Humanities 2 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 15%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#17,664,478
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#6,003
of 11,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,318
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#169
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,737 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.