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 |
Inferring pathway dysregulation in cancers from multiple types of omic data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Medicine, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13073-015-0189-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shelley M MacNeil, William E Johnson, Dean Y Li, Stephen R Piccolo, Andrea H Bild |
| Abstract |
Although in some cases individual genomic aberrations may drive disease development in isolation, a complex interplay among multiple aberrations is common. Accordingly, we developed Gene Set Omic Analysis (GSOA), a bioinformatics tool that can evaluate multiple types and combinations of omic data at the pathway level. GSOA uses machine learning to identify dysregulated pathways and improves upon other methods because of its ability to decipher complex, multigene patterns. We compare GSOA to alternative methods and demonstrate its ability to identify pathways known to play a role in various cancer phenotypes. Software implementing the GSOA method is freely available from https://bitbucket.org/srp33/gsoa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 6 | 46% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 77% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 64 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 33% |
| Researcher | 19 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,927,391
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#423
of 1,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,192
of 264,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#10
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 264,981 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 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.