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 |
Case-based medical informatics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-4-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan V Pantazi, José F Arocha, Jochen R Moehr |
| Abstract |
The "applied" nature distinguishes applied sciences from theoretical sciences. To emphasize this distinction, we begin with a general, meta-level overview of the scientific endeavor. We introduce the knowledge spectrum and four interconnected modalities of knowledge. In addition to the traditional differentiation between implicit and explicit knowledge we outline the concepts of general and individual knowledge. We connect general knowledge with the "frame problem," a fundamental issue of artificial intelligence, and individual knowledge with another important paradigm of artificial intelligence, case-based reasoning, a method of individual knowledge processing that aims at solving new problems based on the solutions to similar past problems. We outline the fundamental differences between Medical Informatics and theoretical sciences and propose that Medical Informatics research should advance individual knowledge processing (case-based reasoning) and that natural language processing research is an important step towards this goal that may have ethical implications for patient-centered health medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 3 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 128 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 15% |
| Researcher | 20 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 26% |
| Unknown | 20 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 28% |
| Computer Science | 33 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 28 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,243,094
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#280
of 1,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,725
of 58,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,977 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 58,395 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 90% 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