↓ Skip to main content

Computational ecosystems for data-driven medical genomics

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Computational ecosystems for data-driven medical genomics
Published in
Genome Medicine, September 2010
DOI 10.1186/gm188
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas S Almeida, Almeida JS

Abstract

In the path towards personalized medicine, the integrative bioinformatics infrastructure is a critical enabling resource. Until large-scale reference data became available, the attributes of the computational infrastructure were postulated by many, but have mostly remained unverified. Now that large-scale initiatives such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) are in full swing, the opportunity is at hand to find out what analytical approaches and computational architectures are really effective. A recent report did just that: first a software development environment was assembled as part of an informatics research program, and only then was the analysis of TCGA's glioblastoma multiforme multi-omic data pursued at the multi-omic scale. The results of this complex analysis are the focus of the report highlighted here. However, what is reported in the analysis is also the validating corollary for an infrastructure development effort guided by the iterative identification of sound design criteria for the architecture of the integrative computational infrastructure. The work is at least as valuable as the data analysis results themselves: computational ecosystems with their own high-level abstractions rather than rigid pipelines with prescriptive recipes appear to be the critical feature of an effective infrastructure. Only then can analytical workflows benefit from experimentation just like any other component of the biomedical research program.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 17%
Spain 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 17 74%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Researcher 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Engineering 3 13%
Computer Science 3 13%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 November 2011.
All research outputs
#815,953
of 3,632,582 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#249
of 380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,645
of 98,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#23
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,632,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 63rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 98,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.