↓ Skip to main content

Quality evaluation of extracted ion chromatograms and chromatographic peaks in liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry-based metabolomics data

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
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
Quality evaluation of extracted ion chromatograms and chromatographic peaks in liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry-based metabolomics data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-s11-s5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenchao Zhang, Patrick X Zhao

Abstract

Extracted ion chromatogram (EIC) extraction and chromatographic peak detection are two important processing procedures in liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS)-based metabolomics data analysis. Most commonly, the LC/MS technique employs electrospray ionization as the ionization method. The EICs from LC/MS data are often noisy and contain high background signals. Furthermore, the chromatographic peak quality varies with respect to its location in the chromatogram and most peaks have zigzag shapes. Therefore, there is a critical need to develop effective metrics for quality evaluation of EICs and chromatographic peaks in LC/MS based metabolomics data analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 18%
Chemistry 16 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 22 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,729,576
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,423
of 7,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,782
of 259,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#30
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,276 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 80% 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 259,776 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.