| Title |
From theory to bench confirmation or from bench to theory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40635-016-0113-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julien Demiselle, Frauke Tillmans, Andreas Koch, Peter Radermacher, Pierre Asfar |
| Abstract |
In this commentary, the authors discuss two possible approaches in experimental studies. The first approach is to replicate an experimentation in order to confirm or not previously published results. The second one is more theoretical and consists in estimating the expected effect of all the components of the problem. When theoretical calculations suggest a theoretical failure that contradicts previous published results, investigators are between a rock and a hard place. Indeed, how can already published data and theoretical likelihood of failure be reconciled? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 29% |
| Professor | 1 | 14% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,733,296
of 23,978,545 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#280
of 481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,293
of 426,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,978,545 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 426,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.