↓ Skip to main content

Identifying pathogenic processes by integrating microarray data with prior knowledge

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Identifying pathogenic processes by integrating microarray data with prior knowledge
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ståle Nygård, Trond Reitan, Trevor Clancy, Vegard Nygaard, Johannes Bjørnstad, Biljana Skrbic, Theis Tønnessen, Geir Christensen, Eivind Hovig

Abstract

It is of great importance to identify molecular processes and pathways that are involved in disease etiology. Although there has been an extensive use of various high-throughput methods for this task, pathogenic pathways are still not completely understood. Often the set of genes or proteins identified as altered in genome-wide screens show a poor overlap with canonical disease pathways. These findings are difficult to interpret, yet crucial in order to improve the understanding of the molecular processes underlying the disease progression. We present a novel method for identifying groups of connected molecules from a set of differentially expressed genes. These groups represent functional modules sharing common cellular function and involve signaling and regulatory events. Specifically, our method makes use of Bayesian statistics to identify groups of co-regulated genes based on the microarray data, where external information about molecular interactions and connections are used as priors in the group assignments. Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling is used to search for the most reliable grouping.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Computer Science 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 20%
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 24 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,370
of 7,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,811
of 227,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#80
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 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 7,269 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 227,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.