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 |
A Statistical Method and Tool to Account for Indirect Calorimetry Differential Measurement Error in a Single-Subject Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2016.00172 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew S. Tenan |
| Abstract |
Indirect calorimetry and oxygen consumption (VO2) are accepted tools in human physiology research. It has been shown that indirect calorimetry systems exhibit differential measurement error, where the error of a device is systematically different depending on the volume of gas flow. Moreover, systems commonly report multiple decimal places of precision, giving the clinician a false sense of device accuracy. The purpose of this manuscript is to demonstrate the use of a novel statistical tool which models the reliability of two specific indirect calorimetry systems, Douglas bag and Parvomedics 2400 TrueOne, as univariate normal distributions and implements the distribution overlapping coefficient to determine the likelihood that two VO2 measures are the same. A command line implementation of the tool is available for the R programming language as well as a web-based graphical user interface (GUI). This tool is valuable for clinicians performing a single-subject analysis as well as researchers interested in determining if their observed differences exceed the error of the device. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 43% |
| Australia | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
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 21 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,313,081
of 24,366,830 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,429
of 14,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,032
of 314,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#37
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,366,830 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,963 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 314,639 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.