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 |
Frailty: a tale of two concepts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0420-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeremy D. Walston, Karen Bandeen-Roche |
| Abstract |
Frailty is increasingly relevant for clinicians to improve care for vulnerable older adults. Prominent frailty measures include the frailty phenotype and the frailty index. The frailty phenotype is grounded in a theoretical construct hypothesized to have an underlying biological basis. The frailty index describes frailty as a nonspecific age-associated vulnerability, reflected in an accumulation of medical, social, and functional deficits. Building on this model, Minitski et al. describe the development of a biological index that proves to be a reasonable method to predict mortality when compared to other frailty measurements. Strengths include its ability to import clinical measures, interchangeable components, and its potential ability to identify latent risk factors. Obstacles include the lack of a unifying biological theory related to aging, inclusion of costly research measures, and its inability to provide specific clues to the etiology of frailty according to the frailty index definition. Refinement in measures focused on aging-related biological changes rather than using measures that result from chronic disease states could help provide important biological insights and aid in the development of future treatment and preventive modalities.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/161 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 Kingdom | 12 | 48% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 56% |
| Scientists | 7 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 192 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 15% |
| Researcher | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 12% |
| Professor | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 22% |
| Unknown | 47 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 13% |
| Unknown | 60 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,355,907
of 25,050,563 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#954
of 3,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,402
of 270,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#24
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,050,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 270,100 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 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.