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 |
PIGS: improved estimates of identity-by-descent probabilities by probabilistic IBD graph sampling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-16-s5-s9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danny S Park, Yael Baran, Farhad Hormozdiari, Celeste Eng, Dara G Torgerson, Esteban G Burchard, Noah Zaitlen |
| Abstract |
Identifying segments in the genome of different individuals that are identical-by-descent (IBD) is a fundamental element of genetics. IBD data is used for numerous applications including demographic inference, heritability estimation, and mapping disease loci. Simultaneous detection of IBD over multiple haplotypes has proven to be computationally difficult. To overcome this, many state of the art methods estimate the probability of IBD between each pair of haplotypes separately. While computationally efficient, these methods fail to leverage the clique structure of IBD resulting in less powerful IBD identification, especially for small IBD segments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 43% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,284,384
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,855
of 7,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,124
of 285,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#134
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 285,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.