↓ Skip to main content

Scientists’ sense making when hypothesizing about disease mechanisms from expression data and their needs for visualization support

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Scientists’ sense making when hypothesizing about disease mechanisms from expression data and their needs for visualization support
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Mirel, Carsten Görg

Abstract

A common class of biomedical analysis is to explore expression data from high throughput experiments for the purpose of uncovering functional relationships that can lead to a hypothesis about mechanisms of a disease. We call this analysis expression driven, -omics hypothesizing. In it, scientists use interactive data visualizations and read deeply in the research literature. Little is known, however, about the actual flow of reasoning and behaviors (sense making) that scientists enact in this analysis, end-to-end. Understanding this flow is important because if bioinformatics tools are to be truly useful they must support it. Sense making models of visual analytics in other domains have been developed and used to inform the design of useful and usable tools. We believe they would be helpful in bioinformatics. To characterize the sense making involved in expression-driven, -omics hypothesizing, we conducted an in-depth observational study of one scientist as she engaged in this analysis over six months. From findings, we abstracted a preliminary sense making model. Here we describe its stages and suggest guidelines for developing visualization tools that we derived from this case. A single case cannot be generalized. But we offer our findings, sense making model and case-based tool guidelines as a first step toward increasing interest and further research in the bioinformatics field on scientists' analytical workflows and their implications for tool design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 5%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 34 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 27%
Researcher 9 22%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 18 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 27%
Engineering 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 1 2%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 July 2015.
All research outputs
#4,074,103
of 24,698,625 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,413
of 7,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,068
of 232,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#31
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,698,625 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 7,572 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 81% 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 232,128 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 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.