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 |
Log-binomial models: exploring failed convergence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1742-7622-10-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tyler Williamson, Misha Eliasziw, Gordon Hilton Fick |
| Abstract |
Relative risk is a summary metric that is commonly used in epidemiological investigations. Increasingly, epidemiologists are using log-binomial models to study the impact of a set of predictor variables on a single binary outcome, as they naturally offer relative risks. However, standard statistical software may report failed convergence when attempting to fit log-binomial models in certain settings. The methods that have been proposed in the literature for dealing with failed convergence use approximate solutions to avoid the issue. This research looks directly at the log-likelihood function for the simplest log-binomial model where failed convergence has been observed, a model with a single linear predictor with three levels. The possible causes of failed convergence are explored and potential solutions are presented for some cases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 33% |
| United States | 3 | 25% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 42% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 169 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 18% |
| Researcher | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 15% |
| Unknown | 50 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 December 2022.
All research outputs
#5,556,966
of 25,907,102 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#55
of 154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,514
of 322,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,907,102 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 322,629 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them