Automated Author ProfileSauser Zachrison, Kori
Harvard Medical School
Sauser Zachrison, Kori
Current S-Index
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 0.8 (sum of 1 dataset Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
Background: Connected individuals (or nodes) in a network are more likely to be similar than two randomly selected nodes due to homophily and/or network influence. Distinguishing between these two influences is an important goal in network analysis, and generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses of longitudinal dyadic network data are an attractive approach. It is not known to what extent such regressions can accurately extract underlying data generating processes. Therefore our primary objective is to determine to what extent, and under what conditions, does the GEE-approach recreate the actual dynamics in an agent-based model. Methods: We generated simulated cohorts with pre-specified network characteristics and attachments in both static and dynamic networks, and we varied the presence of homophily and network influence. We then used statistical regression and examined the GEE model performance in each cohort to determine whether the model was able to detect the presence of homophily and network influence. Results: In cohorts with both static and dynamic networks, we find that the GEE models have excellent sensitivity and reasonable specificity for determining the presence or absence of network influence, but little ability to distinguish whether or not homophily is present. Conclusions: The GEE models are a valuable tool to examine for the presence of network influence in longitudinal data, but are quite limited with respect to homophily.
Authors
- Sauser Zachrison, Kori ;
- Iwashyna, Theodore J. ;
- Gebremariam, Achamyeleh ;
- Hutchins, Meghan ;
- Lee, Joyce M.