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 |
Empirical assessment of sequencing errors for high throughput pyrosequencing data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-6-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paulo GS da Fonseca, Jorge AP Paiva, Luiz GP Almeida, Ana TR Vasconcelos, Ana T Freitas |
| Abstract |
Sequencing-by-synthesis technologies significantly improve over the Sanger method in terms of speed and cost per base. However, they still usually fail to compete in terms of read length and quality. Current high-throughput implementations of the pyrosequencing technique yield reads whose length approach those of the capillary electrophoresis method. A less obvious question is whether their quality is affected by platform-specific sequencing errors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Italy | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 33% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 13% |
| Engineering | 2 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 January 2013.
All research outputs
#18,326,065
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,009
of 4,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,194
of 279,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#28
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 279,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.