| Title |
AUREA: an open-source software system for accurate and user-friendly identification of relative expression molecular signatures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-14-78 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John C Earls, James A Eddy, Cory C Funk, Younhee Ko, Andrew T Magis, Nathan D Price |
| Abstract |
Public databases such as the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus contain extensive and exponentially increasing amounts of high-throughput data that can be applied to molecular phenotype characterization. Collectively, these data can be analyzed for such purposes as disease diagnosis or phenotype classification. One family of algorithms that has proven useful for disease classification is based on relative expression analysis and includes the Top-Scoring Pair (TSP), k-Top-Scoring Pairs (k-TSP), Top-Scoring Triplet (TST) and Differential Rank Conservation (DIRAC) algorithms. These relative expression analysis algorithms hold significant advantages for identifying interpretable molecular signatures for disease classification, and have been implemented previously on a variety of computational platforms with varying degrees of usability. To increase the user-base and maximize the utility of these methods, we developed the program AUREA (Adaptive Unified Relative Expression Analyzer)-a cross-platform tool that has a consistent application programming interface (API), an easy-to-use graphical user interface (GUI), fast running times and automated parameter discovery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 5 | 71% |
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 5% |
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 37 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,878,558
of 23,572,442 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#932
of 7,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,015
of 196,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#16
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,572,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,418 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 87% 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 196,484 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 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.