↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Different Risk-Stratification Systems for the Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Thyroid Nodules

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Comparison of Different Risk-Stratification Systems for the Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Thyroid Nodules
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, May 2019
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2019.00378
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Shen, Miao Liu, Jie He, Shu Wu, Ming Chen, Yonglin Wan, Linjun Gao, Xiaoyan Cai, Jun Ding, Xiaohong Fu

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 3 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Other 7 11%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 24 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#18,034,109
of 26,370,291 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#8,379
of 23,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,043
of 369,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#149
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,370,291 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,018 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 369,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.