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 |
A survey of computational tools for downstream analysis of proteomic and other omic datasets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Genomics, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40246-015-0050-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anis Karimpour-Fard, L. Elaine Epperson, Lawrence E. Hunter |
| Abstract |
Proteomics is an expanding area of research into biological systems with significance for biomedical and therapeutic applications ranging from understanding the molecular basis of diseases to testing new treatments, studying the toxicity of drugs, or biotechnological improvements in agriculture. Progress in proteomic technologies and growing interest has resulted in rapid accumulation of proteomic data, and consequently, a great number of tools have become available. In this paper, we review the well-known and ready-to-use tools for classification, clustering and validation, interpretation, and generation of biological information from experimental data. We suggest some rules of thumb for the reader on choosing the best suitable learning method for a particular dataset and conclude with pathway and functional analysis and then provide information about submitting final results to a repository. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 5 | 42% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 48 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 18% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 19% |
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 30 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,134,250
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#51
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,147
of 295,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 295,276 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.