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 |
Ten quick tips for machine learning in computational biology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BioData Mining, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13040-017-0155-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Davide Chicco |
| Abstract |
Machine learning has become a pivotal tool for many projects in computational biology, bioinformatics, and health informatics. Nevertheless, beginners and biomedical researchers often do not have enough experience to run a data mining project effectively, and therefore can follow incorrect practices, that may lead to common mistakes or over-optimistic results. With this review, we present ten quick tips to take advantage of machine learning in any computational biology context, by avoiding some common errors that we observed hundreds of times in multiple bioinformatics projects. We believe our ten suggestions can strongly help any machine learning practitioner to carry on a successful project in computational biology and related sciences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 344 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 | 82 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 36 | 10% |
| Spain | 16 | 5% |
| Germany | 15 | 4% |
| France | 15 | 4% |
| Canada | 11 | 3% |
| Australia | 10 | 3% |
| India | 7 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 50 | 15% |
| Unknown | 97 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 177 | 51% |
| Members of the public | 161 | 47% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 1% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1137 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 219 | 19% |
| Researcher | 169 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 168 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 134 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 53 | 5% |
| Other | 144 | 13% |
| Unknown | 250 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 172 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 171 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 131 | 12% |
| Engineering | 111 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 4% |
| Other | 198 | 17% |
| Unknown | 303 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 207. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#191,982
of 25,736,439 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#1
of 325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,103
of 447,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,736,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 447,882 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them