↓ Skip to main content

A framework for enhancing spatial and temporal granularity in report-based health surveillance systems

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
A framework for enhancing spatial and temporal granularity in report-based health surveillance systems
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-10-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hutchatai Chanlekha, Ai Kawazoe, Nigel Collier

Abstract

Current public concern over the spread of infectious diseases has underscored the importance of health surveillance systems for the speedy detection of disease outbreaks. Several international report-based monitoring systems have been developed, including GPHIN, Argus, HealthMap, and BioCaster. A vital feature of these report-based systems is the geo-temporal encoding of outbreak-related textual data. Until now, automated systems have tended to use an ad-hoc strategy for processing geo-temporal information, normally involving the detection of locations that match pre-determined criteria, and the use of document publication dates as a proxy for disease event dates. Although these strategies appear to be effective enough for reporting events at the country and province levels, they may be less effective at discovering geo-temporal information at more detailed levels of granularity. In order to improve the capabilities of current Web-based health surveillance systems, we introduce the design for a novel scheme called spatiotemporal zoning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Canada 2 3%
Brazil 1 2%
Indonesia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 55 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 34%
Computer Science 13 21%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 8 13%
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 12 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,332,122
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,563
of 1,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,794
of 164,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,980 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 164,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.