↓ Skip to main content

The specificity triad: notions of disease and therapeutic specificity in biomedical reasoning

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, October 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 (#49 of 234)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
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
The specificity triad: notions of disease and therapeutic specificity in biomedical reasoning
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-9-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shai Mulinari

Abstract

Biomedicine is typically defined as the branch of medicine that is based on the principles of biology and biochemistry. A central tenet for biomedicine is the notion of disease and therapeutic specificity, i.e. the idea of tailored treatments for discrete disorders underpinned by specific pathologies. The present paper is concerned with how notions of disease and therapeutic specificity guide biomedical reasoning. To that end, the author proposes a model - the specificity triad - that draws on late philosopher and physician Ludwik Fleck's concept of "style of thought" to offer a frame for investigating the intricate process through which links between disorders, mechanisms, and therapeutics are established by biomedicine. Next by applying the specificity triad model to scrutinize research efforts in two discrete areas of medicine-psychiatry and regenerative medicine-this paper seeks to stimulate pertinent discussions in and about biomedicine. These include discussions on the ambiguous epistemic status of psychiatry within contemporary biomedicine, as well as the relationship between developmental biology - historically relatively disjointed from biomedical enterprise - and the burgeoning field of regenerative medicine.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
New Zealand 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 28%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Social Sciences 5 16%
Arts and Humanities 3 9%
Philosophy 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 15 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,112,308
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#49
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,755
of 271,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 271,608 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.