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 |
A statistical approach to selecting and confirming validation targets in -omics experiments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-13-150 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey T Leek, Margaret A Taub, Jason L Rasgon |
| Abstract |
Genomic technologies are, by their very nature, designed for hypothesis generation. In some cases, the hypotheses that are generated require that genome scientists confirm findings about specific genes or proteins. But one major advantage of high-throughput technology is that global genetic, genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic behaviors can be observed. Manual confirmation of every statistically significant genomic result is prohibitively expensive. This has led researchers in genomics to adopt the strategy of confirming only a handful of the most statistically significant results, a small subset chosen for biological interest, or a small random subset. But there is no standard approach for selecting and quantitatively evaluating validation targets. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 States | 4 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 5 | 45% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 35% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 3% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 48 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,651,546
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#287
of 7,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,460
of 169,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#5
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,624 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 96% 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 169,541 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 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 95% of its contemporaries.