↓ Skip to main content

Digital transformation of health and care to sustain Planetary Health: The MASK proof‐of‐concept for airway diseases—POLLAR symposium under the auspices of Finland's Presidency of the EU, 2019 and…

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, June 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Digital transformation of health and care to sustain Planetary Health: The MASK proof‐of‐concept for airway diseases—POLLAR symposium under the auspices of Finland's Presidency of the EU, 2019 and MACVIA‐France, Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Diseases (GARD, WH0) demonstration project, Reference Site Collaborative Network of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, June 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13601-020-00321-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Bousquet, Josep M. Anto, Tari Haahtela, Pekka Jousilahti, Marina Erhola, Xavier Basagaña, Wienczyslawa Czarlewski, Mikaëla Odemyr, Susanna Palkonen, Mikael Sofiev, César Velasco, Anna Bedbrook, Rodrigo Delgado, Rostislav Kouznetsov, Mika Mäkelä, Yuliia Palamarchuk, Kimmo Saarinen, Erja Tommila, Erkka Valovirta, Tuula Vasankari, Torsten Zuberbier, Isabella Annesi‐Maesano, Samuel Benveniste, Eve Mathieu‐Dupas, Jean‐Louis Pépin, Robert Picard, Stéphane Zeng, Julia Ayache, Nuria Calves Venturos, Yann Micheli, Ingrid Jullian‐Desayes, Daniel Laune

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 32 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Computer Science 5 6%
Engineering 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 33 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,501,584
of 23,215,490 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#357
of 676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,639
of 399,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,215,490 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 399,265 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.