↓ Skip to main content

SUNPLIN: Simulation with Uncertainty for Phylogenetic Investigations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
SUNPLIN: Simulation with Uncertainty for Phylogenetic Investigations
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-324
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wellington S Martins, Welton C Carmo, Humberto J Longo, Thierson C Rosa, Thiago F Rangel

Abstract

Phylogenetic comparative analyses usually rely on a single consensus phylogenetic tree in order to study evolutionary processes. However, most phylogenetic trees are incomplete with regard to species sampling, which may critically compromise analyses. Some approaches have been proposed to integrate non-molecular phylogenetic information into incomplete molecular phylogenies. An expanded tree approach consists of adding missing species to random locations within their clade. The information contained in the topology of the resulting expanded trees can be captured by the pairwise phylogenetic distance between species and stored in a matrix for further statistical analysis. Thus, the random expansion and processing of multiple phylogenetic trees can be used to estimate the phylogenetic uncertainty through a simulation procedure. Because of the computational burden required, unless this procedure is efficiently implemented, the analyses are of limited applicability.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 50%
Environmental Science 14 17%
Computer Science 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 9 11%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 November 2013.
All research outputs
#17,703,558
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,924
of 7,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,749
of 211,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#82
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 211,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.