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 |
Discovering motifs that induce sequencing errors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-14-s5-s1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manuel Allhoff, Alexander Schönhuth, Marcel Martin, Ivan G Costa, Sven Rahmann, Tobias Marschall |
| Abstract |
Elevated sequencing error rates are the most predominant obstacle in single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection, which is a major goal in the bulk of current studies using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Beyond routinely handled generic sources of errors, certain base calling errors relate to specific sequence patterns. Statistically principled ways to associate sequence patterns with base calling errors have not been previously described. Extant approaches either incur decisive losses in power, due to relating errors with individual genomic positions rather than motifs, or do not properly distinguish between motif-induced and sequence-unspecific sources of errors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 55% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 9% |
| Norway | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 8 | 73% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 45 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 68 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 13 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 05 December 2014.
All research outputs
#1,911,018
of 24,155,398 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#433
of 7,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,794
of 202,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#10
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,155,398 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 202,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.