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 |
A ratiometric-based measure of gene co-expression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-331 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna CT Abelin, Georgi K Marinov, Brian A Williams, Kenneth McCue, Barbara J Wold |
| Abstract |
Gene co-expression analysis has previously been based on measures that include correlation coefficients and mutual information, as well as newcomers such as MIC. These measures depend primarily on the degree of association between the RNA levels of two genes and to a lesser extent on their variability. They focus on the similarity of expression value trajectories that change in like manner across samples. However there are relationships of biological interest for which these classical measures are expected to be insensitive. These include genes whose expression levels are ratiometrically stable and genes whose variance is tightly constrained. Large-scale studies of relatively homogeneous samples, including single cell RNA-seq, are experimental settings in which such relationships might be especially pertinent. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Norway | 1 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 78% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,855,169
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#909
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,528
of 367,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#20
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 367,627 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.