↓ Skip to main content

Identifying elemental genomic track types and representing them uniformly

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2011
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
Identifying elemental genomic track types and representing them uniformly
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-12-494
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sveinung Gundersen, Matúš Kalaš, Osman Abul, Arnoldo Frigessi, Eivind Hovig, Geir Kjetil Sandve

Abstract

With the recent advances and availability of various high-throughput sequencing technologies, data on many molecular aspects, such as gene regulation, chromatin dynamics, and the three-dimensional organization of DNA, are rapidly being generated in an increasing number of laboratories. The variation in biological context, and the increasingly dispersed mode of data generation, imply a need for precise, interoperable and flexible representations of genomic features through formats that are easy to parse. A host of alternative formats are currently available and in use, complicating analysis and tool development. The issue of whether and how the multitude of formats reflects varying underlying characteristics of data has to our knowledge not previously been systematically treated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Germany 2 3%
Colombia 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 50 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 38%
Computer Science 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Mathematics 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 5 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#3,543,292
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,290
of 7,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,855
of 243,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#18
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 243,607 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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.