Downloads provided by UsageCounts
We propose a practical checklist to help authors to self assess the quality of their contribution and to help reviewers to recognize and appreciate high-quality medical ML studies by distinguishing them from the mere application of ML techniques to medical data. This checklist is licensed under a Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0International” license. If you want to cite this checklist: Cabitza F., Campagner, A. (2021) The need to separate the wheat from the chaff in medical informatics. International Journal of Medical Informatics.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 341 | |
| downloads | 332 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts