↓ Skip to main content

Fizzy: feature subset selection for metagenomics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
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.
Title
Fizzy: feature subset selection for metagenomics
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0793-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory Ditzler, J. Calvin Morrison, Yemin Lan, Gail L. Rosen

Abstract

Some of the current software tools for comparative metagenomics provide ecologists with the ability to investigate and explore bacterial communities using α- & β-diversity. Feature subset selection - a sub-field of machine learning - can also provide a unique insight into the differences between metagenomic or 16S phenotypes. In particular, feature subset selection methods can obtain the operational taxonomic units (OTUs), or functional features, that have a high-level of influence on the condition being studied. For example, in a previous study we have used information-theoretic feature selection to understand the differences between protein family abundances that best discriminate between age groups in the human gut microbiome. We have developed a new Python command line tool, which is compatible with the widely adopted BIOM format, for microbial ecologists that implements information-theoretic subset selection methods for biological data formats. We demonstrate the software tools capabilities on publicly available datasets. We have made the software implementation of Fizzy available to the public under the GNU GPL license. The standalone implementation can be found at http://github.com/EESI/Fizzy .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
Brazil 4 3%
Germany 3 3%
Turkey 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 100 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 20%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 33%
Computer Science 25 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 19 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,663,348
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,262
of 7,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,600
of 291,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#22
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 291,350 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.