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 |
Software for selecting the most informative sets of genomic loci for multi-target microbial typing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-14-148 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew VN O’Sullivan, Vitali Sintchenko, Gwendolyn L Gilbert |
| Abstract |
High-throughput sequencing can identify numerous potential genomic targets for microbial strain typing, but identification of the most informative combinations requires the use of computational screening tools. This paper describes novel software-- Automated Selection of Typing Target Subsets (AuSeTTS)--that allows intelligent selection of optimal targets for pathogen strain typing. The objective of this software is to maximise both discriminatory power, using Simpson's index of diversity (D), and concordance with existing typing methods, using the adjusted Wallace coefficient (AW). The program interrogates molecular typing results for panels of isolates, based on large target sets, and iteratively examines each target, one-by-one, to determine the most informative subset. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 45% |
| Professor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
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 02 May 2013.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,486
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,062
of 194,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#117
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,454 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 194,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.