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 |
Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-9-20 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M Brandon Westover, Kenneth D Westover, Matt T Bianchi |
| Abstract |
Truth claims in the medical literature rely heavily on statistical significance testing. Unfortunately, most physicians misunderstand the underlying probabilistic logic of significance tests and consequently often misinterpret their results. This near-universal misunderstanding is highlighted by means of a simple quiz which we administered to 246 physicians at two major academic hospitals, on which the proportion of incorrect responses exceeded 90%. A solid understanding of the fundamental concepts of probability theory is becoming essential to the rational interpretation of medical information. This essay provides a technically sound review of these concepts that is accessible to a medical audience. We also briefly review the debate in the cognitive sciences regarding physicians' aptitude for probabilistic inference. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 18% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Professor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 28% |
| Psychology | 14 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 30% |
| Unknown | 14 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 10 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,639,580
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,149
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,654
of 110,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 110,037 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 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.