↓ Skip to main content

The microbiome quality control project: baseline study design and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
56 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
353 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
The microbiome quality control project: baseline study design and future directions
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13059-015-0841-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rashmi Sinha, Christian C. Abnet, Owen White, Rob Knight, Curtis Huttenhower

Abstract

Microbiome research has grown exponentially over the past several years, but studies have been difficult to reproduce across investigations. Relevant variation in measurements between laboratories, from a variety of sources, has not been systematically assessed. This is coupled with a growing concern in the scientific community about the lack of reproducibility in biomedical research. The Microbiome Quality Control project (MBQC) was initiated to identify sources of variation in microbiome studies, to quantify their magnitudes, and to assess the design and utility of different positive and negative control strategies. Here we report on the first MBQC baseline study project and workshop.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 353 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 334 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 77 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 21%
Student > Master 50 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 5%
Other 60 17%
Unknown 47 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 131 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 68 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 24 7%
Computer Science 12 3%
Other 40 11%
Unknown 53 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#783,808
of 22,561,331 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#604
of 4,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,128
of 408,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#54
of 292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,561,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,087 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 85% 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 408,120 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 292 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.