↓ Skip to main content

iCAGES: integrated CAncer GEnome Score for comprehensively prioritizing driver genes in personal cancer genomes

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
45 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
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.
Title
iCAGES: integrated CAncer GEnome Score for comprehensively prioritizing driver genes in personal cancer genomes
Published in
Genome Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0390-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chengliang Dong, Yunfei Guo, Hui Yang, Zeyu He, Xiaoming Liu, Kai Wang

Abstract

Cancer results from the acquisition of somatic driver mutations. Several computational tools can predict driver genes from population-scale genomic data, but tools for analyzing personal cancer genomes are underdeveloped. Here we developed iCAGES, a novel statistical framework that infers driver variants by integrating contributions from coding, non-coding, and structural variants, identifies driver genes by combining genomic information and prior biological knowledge, then generates prioritized drug treatment. Analysis on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data showed that iCAGES predicts whether patients respond to drug treatment (P = 0.006 by Fisher's exact test) and long-term survival (P = 0.003 from Cox regression). iCAGES is available at http://icages.wglab.org .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 109 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 15 13%
Other 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 27 24%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 19%
Computer Science 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 23 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#385,828
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#66
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,193
of 420,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 420,601 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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.