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 |
Support vector machine versus logistic regression modeling for prediction of hospital mortality in critically ill patients with haematological malignancies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-8-56 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T Verplancke, S Van Looy, D Benoit, S Vansteelandt, P Depuydt, F De Turck, J Decruyenaere |
| Abstract |
Several models for mortality prediction have been constructed for critically ill patients with haematological malignancies in recent years. These models have proven to be equally or more accurate in predicting hospital mortality in patients with haematological malignancies than ICU severity of illness scores such as the APACHE II or SAPS II 1. The objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of predicting hospital mortality in patients with haematological malignancies admitted to the ICU between models based on multiple logistic regression (MLR) and support vector machine (SVM) based models. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 107 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 22% |
| Researcher | 20 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 20 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Engineering | 6 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 23% |
| Unknown | 27 | 23% |
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 06 September 2013.
All research outputs
#19,029,065
of 24,240,330 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,560
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,922
of 172,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,240,330 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 172,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.