↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals discrepancies in the distribution of research funding

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
64 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals discrepancies in the distribution of research funding
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-526
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley JR Carter, Cecine N Nguyen

Abstract

Ideally, the distribution of research funding for different types of cancer should be equitable with respect to the societal burden each type of cancer imposes. These burdens can be estimated in a variety of ways; "Years of Life Lost" (YLL) measures the severity of death in regard to the age it occurs, "Disability-Adjusted Life-Years" (DALY) estimates the effects of non-lethal disabilities incurred by disease and economic metrics focus on the losses to tax revenue, productivity or direct medical expenses. We compared research funding from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to a variety of burden metrics for the most common types of cancer to identify mismatches between spending and societal burden.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 4 3%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 131 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 22%
Researcher 26 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 14 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 36%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 26 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 22 April 2022.
All research outputs
#395,512
of 21,172,126 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#344
of 13,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,928
of 142,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,172,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 142,480 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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