↓ Skip to main content

Toward Standardizing a Lexicon of Infectious Disease Modeling Terms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, September 2016
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
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Toward Standardizing a Lexicon of Infectious Disease Modeling Terms
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00213
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachael Milwid, Andreea Steriu, Julien Arino, Jane Heffernan, Ayaz Hyder, Dena Schanzer, Emma Gardner, Margaret Haworth-Brockman, Harpa Isfeld-Kiely, Joanne M. Langley, Seyed M. Moghadas

Abstract

Disease modeling is increasingly being used to evaluate the effect of health intervention strategies, particularly for infectious diseases. However, the utility and application of such models are hampered by the inconsistent use of infectious disease modeling terms between and within disciplines. We sought to standardize the lexicon of infectious disease modeling terms and develop a glossary of terms commonly used in describing models' assumptions, parameters, variables, and outcomes. We combined a comprehensive literature review of relevant terms with an online forum discussion in a virtual community of practice, mod4PH (Modeling for Public Health). Using a convergent discussion process and consensus amongst the members of mod4PH, a glossary of terms was developed as an online resource. We anticipate that the glossary will improve inter- and intradisciplinary communication and will result in a greater uptake and understanding of disease modeling outcomes in heath policy decision-making. We highlight the role of the mod4PH community of practice and the methodologies used in this endeavor to link theory, policy, and practice in the public health domain.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Other 14 27%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#13,990,008
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,343
of 10,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,006
of 322,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#42
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 322,616 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 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.