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 |
Genome-wide expression assay comparison across frozen and fixed postmortem brain tissue samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-12-449 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maggie L Chow, Hai-Ri Li, Mary E Winn, Craig April, Cynthia C Barnes, Anthony Wynshaw-Boris, Jian-Bing Fan, Xiang-Dong Fu, Eric Courchesne, Nicholas J Schork |
| Abstract |
Gene expression assays have been shown to yield high quality genome-wide data from partially degraded RNA samples. However, these methods have not yet been applied to postmortem human brain tissue, despite their potential to overcome poor RNA quality and other technical limitations inherent in many assays. We compared cDNA-mediated annealing, selection, and ligation (DASL)- and in vitro transcription (IVT)-based genome-wide expression profiling assays on RNA samples from artificially degraded reference pools, frozen brain tissue, and formalin-fixed brain tissue. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Professor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 40% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
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 15 September 2011.
All research outputs
#18,295,723
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#8,136
of 10,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,563
of 126,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#68
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 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 10,605 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 126,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.