↓ Skip to main content

Nanopublications for exposing experimental data in the life-sciences: a Huntington’s Disease case study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 368)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Nanopublications for exposing experimental data in the life-sciences: a Huntington’s Disease case study
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/2041-1480-6-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleni Mina, Mark Thompson, Rajaram Kaliyaperumal, Jun Zhao, van Eelke der Horst, Zuotian Tatum, Kristina M Hettne, Erik A Schultes, Barend Mons, Marco Roos

Abstract

Data from high throughput experiments often produce far more results than can ever appear in the main text or tables of a single research article. In these cases, the majority of new associations are often archived either as supplemental information in an arbitrary format or in publisher-independent databases that can be difficult to find. These data are not only lost from scientific discourse, but are also elusive to automated search, retrieval and processing. Here, we use the nanopublication model to make scientific assertions that were concluded from a workflow analysis of Huntington's Disease data machine-readable, interoperable, and citable. We followed the nanopublication guidelines to semantically model our assertions as well as their provenance metadata and authorship. We demonstrate interoperability by linking nanopublication provenance to the Research Object model. These results indicate that nanopublications can provide an incentive for researchers to expose data that is interoperable and machine-readable for future use and preservation for which they can get credits for their effort. Nanopublications can have a leading role into hypotheses generation offering opportunities to produce large-scale data integration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 6%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 23 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 21%
Engineering 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,598,271
of 25,432,721 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#32
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,101
of 364,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,432,721 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 364,938 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.