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 |
Valection: design optimization for validation and verification studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-018-2391-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher I Cooper, Delia Yao, Dorota H Sendorek, Takafumi N Yamaguchi, Christine P’ng, Kathleen E Houlahan, Cristian Caloian, Michael Fraser, SMC-DNA Challenge Participants, Kyle Ellrott, Adam A Margolin, Robert G Bristow, Joshua M Stuart, Paul C Boutros |
| Abstract |
Platform-specific error profiles necessitate confirmatory studies where predictions made on data generated using one technology are additionally verified by processing the same samples on an orthogonal technology. However, verifying all predictions can be costly and redundant, and testing a subset of findings is often used to estimate the true error profile. To determine how to create subsets of predictions for validation that maximize accuracy of global error profile inference, we developed Valection, a software program that implements multiple strategies for the selection of verification candidates. We evaluated these selection strategies on one simulated and two experimental datasets. Valection is implemented in multiple programming languages, available at: http://labs.oicr.on.ca/boutros-lab/software/valection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 32% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 3 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
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 01 October 2018.
All research outputs
#18,649,666
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,365
of 7,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,062
of 341,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#90
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,329 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 341,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.