| Title |
The eICU Collaborative Research Database, a freely available multi-center database for critical care research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Data, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sdata.2018.178 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tom J. Pollard, Alistair E. W. Johnson, Jesse D. Raffa, Leo A. Celi, Roger G. Mark, Omar Badawi |
| Abstract |
Critical care patients are monitored closely through the course of their illness. As a result of this monitoring, large amounts of data are routinely collected for these patients. Philips Healthcare has developed a telehealth system, the eICU Program, which leverages these data to support management of critically ill patients. Here we describe the eICU Collaborative Research Database, a multi-center intensive care unit (ICU)database with high granularity data for over 200,000 admissions to ICUs monitored by eICU Programs across the United States. The database is deidentified, and includes vital sign measurements, care plan documentation, severity of illness measures, diagnosis information, treatment information, and more. Data are publicly available after registration, including completion of a training course in research with human subjects and signing of a data use agreement mandating responsible handling of the data and adhering to the principle of collaborative research. The freely available nature of the data will support a number of applications including the development of machine learning algorithms, decision support tools, and clinical research. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 112 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 44 | 39% |
| Australia | 7 | 6% |
| Spain | 5 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 4% |
| Germany | 5 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 4 | 4% |
| India | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 46% |
| Scientists | 44 | 39% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 457 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 457 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 64 | 14% |
| Researcher | 60 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 52 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 86 | 19% |
| Unknown | 136 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 76 | 17% |
| Engineering | 49 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 15 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 65 | 14% |
| Unknown | 163 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 19 July 2023.
All research outputs
#523,374
of 24,486,486 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Data
#188
of 2,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,719
of 341,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Data
#5
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,486,486 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 341,749 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.