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 |
Detecting somatic point mutations in cancer genome sequencing data: a comparison of mutation callers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Medicine, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gm495 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qingguo Wang, Peilin Jia, Fei Li, Haiquan Chen, Hongbin Ji, Donald Hucks, Kimberly Brown Dahlman, William Pao, Zhongming Zhao |
| Abstract |
Driven by high throughput next generation sequencing technologies and the pressing need to decipher cancer genomes, computational approaches for detecting somatic single nucleotide variants (sSNVs) have undergone dramatic improvements during the past 2 years. The recently developed tools typically compare a tumor sample directly with a matched normal sample at each variant locus in order to increase the accuracy of sSNV calling. These programs also address the detection of sSNVs at low allele frequencies, allowing for the study of tumor heterogeneity, cancer subclones, and mutation evolution in cancer development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Bahrain | 1 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 44% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 1% |
| Australia | 3 | <1% |
| China | 3 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 1% |
| Unknown | 304 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 100 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 77 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 7% |
| Other | 48 | 14% |
| Unknown | 33 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 146 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 59 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 36 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 9% |
| Engineering | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 7% |
| Unknown | 39 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,192,244
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#840
of 1,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,763
of 223,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 223,715 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.