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 |
Machine learning for screening prioritization in systematic reviews: comparative performance of Abstrackr and EPPI-Reviewer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-020-01324-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy Y. Tsou, Jonathan R. Treadwell, Eileen Erinoff, Karen Schoelles |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 27% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 35 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,132,808
of 24,761,242 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,043
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,944
of 374,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#35
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,761,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 374,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.