| Title |
KniMet: a pipeline for the processing of chromatography–mass spectrometry metabolomics data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Metabolomics, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11306-018-1349-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sonia Liggi, Christine Hinz, Zoe Hall, Maria Laura Santoru, Simone Poddighe, John Fjeldsted, Luigi Atzori, Julian L. Griffin |
| Abstract |
Data processing is one of the biggest problems in metabolomics, given the high number of samples analyzed and the need of multiple software packages for each step of the processing workflow. Merge in the same platform the steps required for metabolomics data processing. KniMet is a workflow for the processing of mass spectrometry-metabolomics data based on the KNIME Analytics platform. The approach includes key steps to follow in metabolomics data processing: feature filtering, missing value imputation, normalization, batch correction and annotation. KniMet provides the user with a local, modular and customizable workflow for the processing of both GC-MS and LC-MS open profiling data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 Kingdom | 6 | 13% |
| France | 4 | 9% |
| United States | 4 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 51% |
| Scientists | 17 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 23% |
| Researcher | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 18% |
| Chemistry | 15 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,451,857
of 25,321,938 outputs
Outputs from Metabolomics
#46
of 1,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,478
of 339,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Metabolomics
#3
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,321,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 339,797 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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.