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 |
Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-11-187 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beifang Niu, Limin Fu, Shulei Sun, Weizhong Li |
| Abstract |
Artificial duplicates from pyrosequencing reads may lead to incorrect interpretation of the abundance of species and genes in metagenomic studies. Duplicated reads were filtered out in many metagenomic projects. However, since the duplicated reads observed in a pyrosequencing run also include natural (non-artificial) duplicates, simply removing all duplicates may also cause underestimation of abundance associated with natural duplicates. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 7 | 2% |
| France | 6 | 2% |
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| Australia | 4 | 1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| India | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Argentina | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 16 | 4% |
| Unknown | 320 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 105 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 104 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 11% |
| Other | 22 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 47 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 226 | 61% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 45 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 19 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 14 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 7% |
| Unknown | 34 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 February 2021.
All research outputs
#6,923,674
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,683
of 7,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,485
of 94,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#31
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 94,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 54% of its contemporaries.