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 |
Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Methods, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nmeth.2365 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nima Aghaeepour, Greg Finak, Holger Hoos, Tim R Mosmann, Ryan Brinkman, Raphael Gottardo, Richard H Scheuermann |
| Abstract |
Traditional methods for flow cytometry (FCM) data processing rely on subjective manual gating. Recently, several groups have developed computational methods for identifying cell populations in multidimensional FCM data. The Flow Cytometry: Critical Assessment of Population Identification Methods (FlowCAP) challenges were established to compare the performance of these methods on two tasks: (i) mammalian cell population identification, to determine whether automated algorithms can reproduce expert manual gating and (ii) sample classification, to determine whether analysis pipelines can identify characteristics that correlate with external variables (such as clinical outcome). This analysis presents the results of the first FlowCAP challenges. Several methods performed well as compared to manual gating or external variables using statistical performance measures, which suggests that automated methods have reached a sufficient level of maturity and accuracy for reliable use in FCM data analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 22% |
| Canada | 3 | 13% |
| Germany | 2 | 9% |
| Japan | 2 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 57% |
| Scientists | 10 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 730 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 2% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| France | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | <1% |
| Unknown | 694 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 183 | 25% |
| Researcher | 173 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 73 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 7% |
| Other | 45 | 6% |
| Other | 108 | 15% |
| Unknown | 98 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 205 | 28% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 77 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 69 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 52 | 7% |
| Other | 136 | 19% |
| Unknown | 119 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#887,104
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#1,162
of 5,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,338
of 299,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#10
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 299,214 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 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.