↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Development and testing of a database of NIH research funding of AAPM members: A report from the AAPM Working Group for the Development of a Research Database (WGDRD)

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Development and testing of a database of NIH research funding of AAPM members: A report from the AAPM Working Group for the Development of a Research Database (WGDRD)
Published in
Medical Physics, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/mp.12098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brendan Whelan, Eduardo G. Moros, Rebecca Fahrig, James Deye, Thomas Yi, Michael Woodward, Paul Keall, Jeff H. Siewerdsen

Abstract

To produce and maintain a database of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members, to perform a top level analysis of this data, and to make this data (hereafter referred to as the AAPM research database) available for the use of the AAPM and its members. NIH funded research dating back to 1985 is available for public download through the NIH exporter website, and AAPM membership information dating back to 2002 was supplied by the AAPM. To link these two sources of data, a data mining algorithm was developed in Matlab. The false positive rate was manually estimated based on a random sample of 100 records, and the false negative rate was assessed by comparing against 99 member supplied PI_ID numbers. The AAPM research database was queried to produce an analysis of trends and demographics in research funding dating from 2002 to 2015. A total of 566 PI_ID numbers were matched to AAPM members. False positive and negative rates were respectively 4% (95% CI: 1-10%, N=100) and 10% (95% CI:5-18%, N=99). Based on analysis of the AAPM research database, in 2015 the NIH awarded $USD 110M to members of the AAPM. The four NIH institutes which have historically awarded the most funding to AAPM members were the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. In 2015 over 85% of the total NIH research funding awarded to AAPM members was via these institutes, representing 1.1% of their combined budget. In the same year 2.0% of AAPM members received NIH funding for a total of $116M, which is lower than the historic mean of $120M (in 2015 USD). A database of NIH funded research awarded to AAPM members has been developed and tested using a data mining approach, and a top level analysis of funding trends has been performed. Current funding of AAPM members is lower than the historic mean. The database will be maintained by members of the Working group for the development of a research data base (WGDRD) on an annual basis, and is available to the AAPM, its committees, working groups, and members for download through the AAPM website. A wide range of questions regarding financial and demographic funding trends can be addressed by this data. This report has been approved for publication by the AAPM Science Council. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Professor 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 11 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Physics and Astronomy 4 15%
Mathematics 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 11 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,983,535
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#4,832
of 7,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,940
of 324,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#66
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 324,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.