↓ Skip to main content

The Fallacy of Univariate Solutions to Complex Systems Problems

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
The Fallacy of Univariate Solutions to Complex Systems Problems
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00267
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina N. Lessov-Schlaggar, Joshua B. Rubin, Bradley L. Schlaggar

Abstract

Complex biological systems, by definition, are composed of multiple components that interact non-linearly. The human brain constitutes, arguably, the most complex biological system known. Yet most investigation of the brain and its function is carried out using assumptions appropriate for simple systems-univariate design and linear statistical approaches. This heuristic must change before we can hope to discover and test interventions to improve the lives of individuals with complex disorders of brain development and function. Indeed, a movement away from simplistic models of biological systems will benefit essentially all domains of biology and medicine. The present brief essay lays the foundation for this argument.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 30 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,600,441
of 25,958,626 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1,557
of 11,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,812
of 356,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#33
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,958,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 356,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.