↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of composition-based metagenomic classification

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Analysis of composition-based metagenomic classification
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-13-s5-s1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Higashi, André da Motta Salles Barreto, Maurício Egidio Cantão, Ana Tereza Ribeiro de Vasconcelos

Abstract

An essential step of a metagenomic study is the taxonomic classification, that is, the identification of the taxonomic lineage of the organisms in a given sample. The taxonomic classification process involves a series of decisions. Currently, in the context of metagenomics, such decisions are usually based on empirical studies that consider one specific type of classifier. In this study we propose a general framework for analyzing the impact that several decisions can have on the classification problem. Instead of focusing on any specific classifier, we define a generic score function that provides a measure of the difficulty of the classification task. Using this framework, we analyze the impact of the following parameters on the taxonomic classification problem: (i) the length of n-mers used to encode the metagenomic sequences, (ii) the similarity measure used to compare sequences, and (iii) the type of taxonomic classification, which can be conventional or hierarchical, depending on whether the classification process occurs in a single shot or in several steps according to the taxonomic tree.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 7%
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 35 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 49%
Computer Science 8 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 17%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 2 5%
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 01 November 2012.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#5,391
of 11,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,042
of 194,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#87
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 194,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 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 50% of its contemporaries.