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 |
Assessment of computational methods for predicting the effects of missense mutations in human cancers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-14-s3-s7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florian Gnad, Albion Baucom, Kiran Mukhyala, Gerard Manning, Zemin Zhang |
| Abstract |
Recent advances in sequencing technologies have greatly increased the identification of mutations in cancer genomes. However, it remains a significant challenge to identify cancer-driving mutations, since most observed missense changes are neutral passenger mutations. Various computational methods have been developed to predict the effects of amino acid substitutions on protein function and classify mutations as deleterious or benign. These include approaches that rely on evolutionary conservation, structural constraints, or physicochemical attributes of amino acid substitutions. Here we review existing methods and further examine eight tools: SIFT, PolyPhen2, Condel, CHASM, mCluster, logRE, SNAP, and MutationAssessor, with respect to their coverage, accuracy, availability and dependence on other tools. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Montenegro | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 211 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 22% |
| Researcher | 48 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 36 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 73 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 49 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 13 | 6% |
| Engineering | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 16% |
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 05 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,486,175
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,724
of 10,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,963
of 195,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#73
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,697 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 195,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.