↓ Skip to main content

Machine learning, medical diagnosis, and biomedical engineering research - commentary

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 873)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
291 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
441 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
Machine learning, medical diagnosis, and biomedical engineering research - commentary
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-925x-13-94
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth R Foster, Robert Koprowski, Joseph D Skufca

Abstract

A large number of papers are appearing in the biomedical engineering literature that describe the use of machine learning techniques to develop classifiers for detection or diagnosis of disease. However, the usefulness of this approach in developing clinically validated diagnostic techniques so far has been limited and the methods are prone to overfitting and other problems which may not be immediately apparent to the investigators. This commentary is intended to help sensitize investigators as well as readers and reviewers of papers to some potential pitfalls in the development of classifiers, and suggests steps that researchers can take to help avoid these problems. Building classifiers should be viewed not simply as an add-on statistical analysis, but as part and parcel of the experimental process. Validation of classifiers for diagnostic applications should be considered as part of a much larger process of establishing the clinical validity of the diagnostic technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 441 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 426 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 17%
Student > Master 70 16%
Researcher 65 15%
Student > Bachelor 53 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 7%
Other 59 13%
Unknown 91 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 110 25%
Computer Science 87 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 3%
Other 58 13%
Unknown 108 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 24 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,666,664
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#24
of 873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,094
of 243,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 243,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.