↓ Skip to main content

Proteomics, lipidomics, metabolomics: a mass spectrometry tutorial from a computer scientist's point of view

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
345 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
Proteomics, lipidomics, metabolomics: a mass spectrometry tutorial from a computer scientist's point of view
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-s7-s9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rob Smith, Andrew D Mathis, Dan Ventura, John T Prince

Abstract

For decades, mass spectrometry data has been analyzed to investigate a wide array of research interests, including disease diagnostics, biological and chemical theory, genomics, and drug development. Progress towards solving any of these disparate problems depends upon overcoming the common challenge of interpreting the large data sets generated. Despite interim successes, many data interpretation problems in mass spectrometry are still challenging. Further, though these challenges are inherently interdisciplinary in nature, the significant domain-specific knowledge gap between disciplines makes interdisciplinary contributions difficult.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Denmark 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 324 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 84 24%
Researcher 67 19%
Student > Master 44 13%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Other 17 5%
Other 37 11%
Unknown 63 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 73 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 15%
Chemistry 50 14%
Computer Science 28 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 6%
Other 52 15%
Unknown 70 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 September 2020.
All research outputs
#17,728,060
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,928
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,141
of 226,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#104
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,273 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 226,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.