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 |
Multi-scale symbolic entropy analysis provides prognostic prediction in patients receiving extracorporeal life support
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0548-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yen-Hung Lin, Hui-Chun Huang, Yi-Chung Chang, Chen Lin, Men-Tzung Lo, Li-Yu Daisy Liu, Pi-Ru Tsai, Yih-Sharng Chen, Wen-Je Ko, Yi-Lwun Ho, Ming-Fong Chen, Chung-Kang Peng, Timothy G Buchman |
| Abstract |
IntroductionExtracorporeal life support (ECLS) can temporarily support cardiopulmonary function, and is occasionally used in resuscitation. Multi-scale entropy (MSE) derived from heart rate variability (HRV) is a powerful tool in outcome prediction of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Multi-scale symbolic entropy analysis (MSsE), a new method derived from MSE, mitigates the effect of arrhythmia on analysis. The objective is to evaluate the prognostic value of MSsE in patients receiving ECLS. The primary outcome is death or urgent transplantation during the index admission.MethodsFifty-seven patients receiving ECLS less than 24 hours and 23 control subjects were enrolled. Digital 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms were recorded and three MSsE parameters (slope 5, Area 6¿20, Area 6¿40) associated with the multiscale correlation and complexity of heart beat fluctuation were calculated.ResultsPatients receiving ECLS had significantly lower value of slope 5, area 6 to 20, and area 6 to 40 than control subjects. During the follow-up period, 29 patients met primary outcome. Age, slope 5, Area 6 to 20, Area 6 to 40, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS), logistic organ dysfunction score (LODS), and myocardial infarction history were significantly associated with primary outcome. Slope 5 showed the greatest discriminatory power. In a net reclassification improvement model, slope 5 significantly improved the predictive power of LODS; Area 6 to 20 and Area 6 to 40 significantly improved the predictive power in MODS. In an integrated discrimination improvement model, slope 5 added significantly to the prediction power of each clinical parameter. Area 6 to 20 and Area 6 to 40 significantly improved the predictive power in sequential organ failure assessment.ConclusionsMSsE provides additional prognostic information in patients receiving ECLS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 30% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 28% |
| Engineering | 7 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,211
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,018
of 274,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#113
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 274,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.