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 |
GAPscreener: An automatic tool for screening human genetic association literature in PubMed using the support vector machine technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-9-205 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei Yu, Melinda Clyne, Siobhan M Dolan, Ajay Yesupriya, Anja Wulf, Tiebin Liu, Muin J Khoury, Marta Gwinn |
| Abstract |
Synthesis of data from published human genetic association studies is a critical step in the translation of human genome discoveries into health applications. Although genetic association studies account for a substantial proportion of the abstracts in PubMed, identifying them with standard queries is not always accurate or efficient. Further automating the literature-screening process can reduce the burden of a labor-intensive and time-consuming traditional literature search. The Support Vector Machine (SVM), a well-established machine learning technique, has been successful in classifying text, including biomedical literature. The GAPscreener, a free SVM-based software tool, can be used to assist in screening PubMed abstracts for human genetic association studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 3 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 44% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Iceland | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 70 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,637,991
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#849
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,630
of 81,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#5
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 81,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.