↓ Skip to main content

Clinical phenotype-based gene prioritization: an initial study using semantic similarity and the human phenotype ontology

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Clinical phenotype-based gene prioritization: an initial study using semantic similarity and the human phenotype ontology
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-248
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron J Masino, Elizabeth T Dechene, Matthew C Dulik, Alisha Wilkens, Nancy B Spinner, Ian D Krantz, Jeffrey W Pennington, Peter N Robinson, Peter S White

Abstract

Exome sequencing is a promising method for diagnosing patients with a complex phenotype. However, variant interpretation relative to patient phenotype can be challenging in some scenarios, particularly clinical assessment of rare complex phenotypes. Each patient's sequence reveals many possibly damaging variants that must be individually assessed to establish clear association with patient phenotype. To assist interpretation, we implemented an algorithm that ranks a given set of genes relative to patient phenotype. The algorithm orders genes by the semantic similarity computed between phenotypic descriptors associated with each gene and those describing the patient. Phenotypic descriptor terms are taken from the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) and semantic similarity is derived from each term's information content.

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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Netherlands 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Norway 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 106 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 20%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 24 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 18%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 23 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,387,125
of 23,301,510 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,056
of 7,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,842
of 229,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#69
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,301,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,379 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 229,819 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.