↓ Skip to main content

From the desktop to the grid: scalable bioinformatics via workflow conversion

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
From the desktop to the grid: scalable bioinformatics via workflow conversion
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-0978-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis de la Garza, Johannes Veit, Andras Szolek, Marc Röttig, Stephan Aiche, Sandra Gesing, Knut Reinert, Oliver Kohlbacher

Abstract

Reproducibility is one of the tenets of the scientific method. Scientific experiments often comprise complex data flows, selection of adequate parameters, and analysis and visualization of intermediate and end results. Breaking down the complexity of such experiments into the joint collaboration of small, repeatable, well defined tasks, each with well defined inputs, parameters, and outputs, offers the immediate benefit of identifying bottlenecks, pinpoint sections which could benefit from parallelization, among others. Workflows rest upon the notion of splitting complex work into the joint effort of several manageable tasks. There are several engines that give users the ability to design and execute workflows. Each engine was created to address certain problems of a specific community, therefore each one has its advantages and shortcomings. Furthermore, not all features of all workflow engines are royalty-free -an aspect that could potentially drive away members of the scientific community. We have developed a set of tools that enables the scientific community to benefit from workflow interoperability. We developed a platform-free structured representation of parameters, inputs, outputs of command-line tools in so-called Common Tool Descriptor documents. We have also overcome the shortcomings and combined the features of two royalty-free workflow engines with a substantial user community: the Konstanz Information Miner, an engine which we see as a formidable workflow editor, and the Grid and User Support Environment, a web-based framework able to interact with several high-performance computing resources. We have thus created a free and highly accessible way to design workflows on a desktop computer and execute them on high-performance computing resources. Our work will not only reduce time spent on designing scientific workflows, but also make executing workflows on remote high-performance computing resources more accessible to technically inexperienced users. We strongly believe that our efforts not only decrease the turnaround time to obtain scientific results but also have a positive impact on reproducibility, thus elevating the quality of obtained scientific results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 89 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 24%
Professor 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 33 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 13 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,091,408
of 24,666,614 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#106
of 7,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,817
of 305,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#6
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,666,614 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,565 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 305,902 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.