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 |
Comparing a few SNP calling algorithms using low-coverage sequencing data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-14-274 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaoqing Yu, Shuying Sun |
| Abstract |
Many Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) calling programs have been developed to identify Single Nucleotide Variations (SNVs) in next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. However, low sequencing coverage presents challenges to accurate SNV identification, especially in single-sample data. Moreover, commonly used SNP calling programs usually include several metrics in their output files for each potential SNP. These metrics are highly correlated in complex patterns, making it extremely difficult to select SNPs for further experimental validations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 7 | 39% |
| Germany | 2 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Norway | 1 | 6% |
| Montenegro | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Sweden | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 11 | 61% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 39% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 318 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| France | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 1% |
| Unknown | 290 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 83 | 26% |
| Researcher | 67 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 49 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 13% |
| Unknown | 36 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 153 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 60 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 30 | 9% |
| Engineering | 8 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 6% |
| Unknown | 42 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,873,829
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#962
of 7,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,314
of 203,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#14
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,387 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 well, scoring higher than 86% 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 203,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.