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 |
QUAliFiER: An automated pipeline for quality assessment of gated flow cytometry data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-13-252 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Greg Finak, Wenxin Jiang, Jorge Pardo, Adam Asare, Raphael Gottardo |
| Abstract |
Effective quality assessment is an important part of any high-throughput flow cytometry data analysis pipeline, especially when considering the complex designs of the typical flow experiments applied in clinical trials. Technical issues like instrument variation, problematic antibody staining, or reagent lot changes can lead to biases in the extracted cell subpopulation statistics. These biases can manifest themselves in non-obvious ways that can be difficult to detect without leveraging information about the study design or other experimental metadata. Consequently, a systematic and integrated approach to quality assessment of flow cytometry data is necessary to effectively identify technical errors that impact multiple samples over time. Gated cell populations and their statistics must be monitored within the context of the experimental run, assay, and the overall study. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Estonia | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 37% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 37% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,569,962
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,052
of 7,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,201
of 172,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#28
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,251 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 172,156 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.