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 |
An optimized library for reference-based deconvolution of whole-blood biospecimens assayed using the Illumina HumanMethylationEPIC BeadArray
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-018-1448-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucas A. Salas, Devin C. Koestler, Rondi A. Butler, Helen M. Hansen, John K. Wiencke, Karl T. Kelsey, Brock C. Christensen |
| Abstract |
Genome-wide methylation arrays are powerful tools for assessing cell composition of complex mixtures. We compare three approaches to select reference libraries for deconvoluting neutrophil, monocyte, B-lymphocyte, natural killer, and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell fractions based on blood-derived DNA methylation signatures assayed using the Illumina HumanMethylationEPIC array. The IDOL algorithm identifies a library of 450 CpGs, resulting in an average R2 = 99.2 across cell types when applied to EPIC methylation data collected on artificial mixtures constructed from the above cell types. Of the 450 CpGs, 69% are unique to EPIC. This library has the potential to reduce unintended technical differences across array platforms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 7 | 47% |
| Germany | 2 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 147 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 38 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 36 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 32 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 46 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,568,522
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#1,277
of 4,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,173
of 344,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#13
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. 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 344,685 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 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.