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 |
How informative is your kinetic model?: using resampling methods for model invalidation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Systems Biology, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1752-0509-8-61 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dicle Hasdemir, Huub CJ Hoefsloot, Johan A Westerhuis, Age K Smilde |
| Abstract |
Kinetic models can present mechanistic descriptions of molecular processes within a cell. They can be used to predict the dynamics of metabolite production, signal transduction or transcription of genes. Although there has been tremendous effort in constructing kinetic models for different biological systems, not much effort has been put into their validation. In this study, we introduce the concept of resampling methods for the analysis of kinetic models and present a statistical model invalidation approach. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 61 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 4% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 18% |
| Engineering | 7 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 27% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#13,176,295
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#452
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,051
of 226,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 226,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 64% of its contemporaries.