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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A computational pipeline for the development of multi-marker bio-signature panels and ensemble classifiers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-13-326 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oliver P Günther, Virginia Chen, Gabriela Cohen Freue, Robert F Balshaw, Scott J Tebbutt, Zsuzsanna Hollander, Mandeep Takhar, W Robert McMaster, Bruce M McManus, Paul A Keown, Raymond T Ng |
| Abstract |
Biomarker panels derived separately from genomic and proteomic data and with a variety of computational methods have demonstrated promising classification performance in various diseases. An open question is how to create effective proteo-genomic panels. The framework of ensemble classifiers has been applied successfully in various analytical domains to combine classifiers so that the performance of the ensemble exceeds the performance of individual classifiers. Using blood-based diagnosis of acute renal allograft rejection as a case study, we address the following question in this paper: Can acute rejection classification performance be improved by combining individual genomic and proteomic classifiers in an ensemble? |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 17% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
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 February 2013.
All research outputs
#13,878,381
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,467
of 7,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,900
of 278,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#79
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 278,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.