↓ Skip to main content

Querying phenotype-genotype relationships on patient datasets using semantic web technology: the example of cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Querying phenotype-genotype relationships on patient datasets using semantic web technology: the example of cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Taboada, Diego Martínez, Belén Pilo, Adriano Jiménez-Escrig, Peter N Robinson, María J Sobrido

Abstract

Semantic Web technology can considerably catalyze translational genetics and genomics research in medicine, where the interchange of information between basic research and clinical levels becomes crucial. This exchange involves mapping abstract phenotype descriptions from research resources, such as knowledge databases and catalogs, to unstructured datasets produced through experimental methods and clinical practice. This is especially true for the construction of mutation databases. This paper presents a way of harmonizing abstract phenotype descriptions with patient data from clinical practice, and querying this dataset about relationships between phenotypes and genetic variants, at different levels of abstraction.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 54 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Master 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Computer Science 13 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 7 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 August 2012.
All research outputs
#13,017,306
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#914
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,248
of 164,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#32
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 164,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.