↓ Skip to main content

Calibration Methods Used in Cancer Simulation Models and Suggested Reporting Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Calibration Methods Used in Cancer Simulation Models and Suggested Reporting Guidelines
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, July 2009
DOI 10.2165/11314830-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha K. Stout, Amy B. Knudsen, Chung Yin Kong, Pamela M. McMahon, G. Scott Gazelle

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 7%
United Kingdom 3 4%
Switzerland 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 69 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 26%
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 28%
Unspecified 11 14%
Engineering 7 9%
Mathematics 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Other 29 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2012.
All research outputs
#3,665,105
of 12,590,431 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#433
of 1,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,470
of 267,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#20
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,590,431 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 267,165 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.