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 |
UMI-count modeling and differential expression analysis for single-cell RNA sequencing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-018-1438-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wenan Chen, Yan Li, John Easton, David Finkelstein, Gang Wu, Xiang Chen |
| Abstract |
Read counting and unique molecular identifier (UMI) counting are the principal gene expression quantification schemes used in single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis. By using multiple scRNA-seq datasets, we reveal distinct distribution differences between these schemes and conclude that the negative binomial model is a good approximation for UMI counts, even in heterogeneous populations. We further propose a novel differential expression analysis algorithm based on a negative binomial model with independent dispersions in each group (NBID). Our results show that this properly controls the FDR and achieves better power for UMI counts when compared to other recently developed packages for scRNA-seq analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 | 3 | 15% |
| Germany | 2 | 10% |
| Spain | 2 | 10% |
| Norway | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 5% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 259 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 21% |
| Researcher | 53 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 10% |
| Unknown | 64 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 78 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 39 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 12% |
| Unknown | 71 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,126,515
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#833
of 4,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,436
of 344,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#10
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 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 344,075 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 92% 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 72% of its contemporaries.