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 procedure to characterize geographic distributions of rare disorders in cohorts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Health Geographics, May 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1476-072x-7-26 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karla C Van Meter, Lasse E Christiansen, Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Rahman Azari, Tim E Carpenter |
| Abstract |
Individual point data can be analyzed against an entire cohort instead of only sampled controls to accurately picture the geographic distribution of populations at risk for low prevalence diseases. Analyzed as individual points, many smaller clusters with high relative risks (RR) and low empirical p values are indistinguishable from a random distribution. When points are aggregated into areal units, small clusters may result in a larger cluster with a low RR or be lost if divided into pieces included in units of larger populations that show no increased prevalence. Previous simulation studies showed lowered validity of spatial scan tests for true clusters with low RR. Using simulations, this study explored the effects of low cluster RR and areal unit size on local area clustering test (LACT) results, proposing a procedure to improve accuracy of cohort spatial analysis for rare events. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 36% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 43% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
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 14 February 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#538
of 654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,028
of 98,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 98,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.