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 |
Estimating causal effects with a non-paranormal method for the design of efficient intervention experiments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-228 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Reiji Teramoto, Chiaki Saito, Shin-ichi Funahashi |
| Abstract |
Knockdown or overexpression of genes is widely used to identify genes that play important roles in many aspects of cellular functions and phenotypes. Because next-generation sequencing generates high-throughput data that allow us to detect genes, it is important to identify genes that drive functional and phenotypic changes of cells. However, conventional methods rely heavily on the assumption of normality and they often give incorrect results when the assumption is not true. To relax the Gaussian assumption in causal inference, we introduce the non-paranormal method to test conditional independence in the PC-algorithm. Then, we present the non-paranormal intervention-calculus when the directed acyclic graph (DAG) is absent (NPN-IDA), which incorporates the cumulative nature of effects through a cascaded pathway via causal inference for ranking causal genes against a phenotype with the non-paranormal method for estimating DAGs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 14% |
| Engineering | 3 | 14% |
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
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 01 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,373,874
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,305
of 7,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,799
of 226,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#120
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,272 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 226,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.