↓ Skip to main content

categoryCompare, an analytical tool based on feature annotations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
categoryCompare, an analytical tool based on feature annotations
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00098
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Assessment of high-throughput-omics data initially focuses on relative or raw levels of a particular feature, such as an expression value for a transcript, protein, or metabolite. At a second level, analyses of annotations including known or predicted functions and associations of each individual feature, attempt to distill biological context. Most currently available comparative- and meta-analyses methods are dependent on the availability of identical features across data sets, and concentrate on determining features that are differentially expressed across experiments, some of which may be considered "biomarkers." The heterogeneity of measurement platforms and inherent variability of biological systems confounds the search for robust biomarkers indicative of a particular condition. In many instances, however, multiple data sets show involvement of common biological processes or signaling pathways, even though individual features are not commonly measured or differentially expressed between them. We developed a methodology, categoryCompare, for cross-platform and cross-sample comparison of high-throughput data at the annotation level. We assessed the utility of the approach using hypothetical data, as well as determining similarities and differences in the set of processes in two instances: (1) denervated skin vs. denervated muscle, and (2) colon from Crohn's disease vs. colon from ulcerative colitis (UC). The hypothetical data showed that in many cases comparing annotations gave superior results to comparing only at the gene level. Improved analytical results depended as well on the number of genes included in the annotation term, the amount of noise in relation to the number of genes expressing in unenriched annotation categories, and the specific method in which samples are combined. In the skin vs. muscle denervation comparison, the tissues demonstrated markedly different responses. The Crohn's vs. UC comparison showed gross similarities in inflammatory response in the two diseases, with particular processes specific to each disease.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Professor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 June 2014.
All research outputs
#4,821,909
of 28,840,878 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,345
of 14,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,901
of 247,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#22
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,840,878 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,752 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 247,688 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.