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 |
WormScan: A Technique for High-Throughput Phenotypic Analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0033483 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mark D. Mathew, Neal D. Mathew, Paul R. Ebert |
Abstract |
There are four main phenotypes that are assessed in whole organism studies of Caenorhabditis elegans; mortality, movement, fecundity and size. Procedures have been developed that focus on the digital analysis of some, but not all of these phenotypes and may be limited by expense and limited throughput. We have developed WormScan, an automated image acquisition system that allows quantitative analysis of each of these four phenotypes on standard NGM plates seeded with E. coli. This system is very easy to implement and has the capacity to be used in high-throughput analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 2 | 1% |
United States | 2 | 1% |
Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
Hungary | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Lithuania | 1 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Israel | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | 1% |
Unknown | 141 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 23% |
Researcher | 34 | 22% |
Student > Master | 21 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 17 | 11% |
Other | 7 | 5% |
Other | 18 | 12% |
Unknown | 23 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 58 | 37% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 17% |
Engineering | 17 | 11% |
Neuroscience | 6 | 4% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 2% |
Other | 18 | 12% |
Unknown | 26 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,911,032
of 24,453,338 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#76,066
of 211,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,836
of 164,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#904
of 3,729 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,453,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 211,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 164,279 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,729 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.