↓ Skip to main content

The pathway ontology – updates and applications

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
The pathway ontology – updates and applications
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/2041-1480-5-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria Petri, Pushkala Jayaraman, Marek Tutaj, G Thomas Hayman, Jennifer R Smith, Jeff De Pons, Stanley JF Laulederkind, Timothy F Lowry, Rajni Nigam, Shur-Jen Wang, Mary Shimoyama, Melinda R Dwinell, Diane H Munzenmaier, Elizabeth A Worthey, Howard J Jacob

Abstract

The Pathway Ontology (PW) developed at the Rat Genome Database (RGD), covers all types of biological pathways, including altered and disease pathways and captures the relationships between them within the hierarchical structure of a directed acyclic graph. The ontology allows for the standardized annotation of rat, and of human and mouse genes to pathway terms. It also constitutes a vehicle for easy navigation between gene and ontology report pages, between reports and interactive pathway diagrams, between pathways directly connected within a diagram and between those that are globally related in pathway suites and suite networks. Surveys of the literature and the development of the Pathway and Disease Portals are important sources for the ongoing development of the ontology. User requests and mapping of pathways in other databases to terms in the ontology further contribute to increasing its content. Recently built automated pipelines use the mapped terms to make available the annotations generated by other groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Pakistan 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Unknown 52 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Computer Science 9 16%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 August 2015.
All research outputs
#6,753,240
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#96
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,420
of 322,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 322,632 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.