↓ Skip to main content

The pitfalls of platform comparison: DNA copy number array technologies assessed

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog


79 Dimensions

Readers on

133 Mendeley
5 CiteULike
The pitfalls of platform comparison: DNA copy number array technologies assessed
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-10-588
Pubmed ID

Christina Curtis, Andy G Lynch, Mark J Dunning, Inmaculada Spiteri, John C Marioni, James Hadfield, Suet-Feung Chin, James D Brenton, Simon Tavaré, Carlos Caldas


The accurate and high resolution mapping of DNA copy number aberrations has become an important tool by which to gain insight into the mechanisms of tumourigenesis. There are various commercially available platforms for such studies, but there remains no general consensus as to the optimal platform. There have been several previous platform comparison studies, but they have either described older technologies, used less-complex samples, or have not addressed the issue of the inherent biases in such comparisons. Here we describe a systematic comparison of data from four leading microarray technologies (the Affymetrix Genome-wide SNP 5.0 array, Agilent High-Density CGH Human 244A array, Illumina HumanCNV370-Duo DNA Analysis BeadChip, and the Nimblegen 385 K oligonucleotide array). We compare samples derived from primary breast tumours and their corresponding matched normals, well-established cancer cell lines, and HapMap individuals. By careful consideration and avoidance of potential sources of bias, we aim to provide a fair assessment of platform performance.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Canada 2 2%
Belgium 2 2%
Mexico 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 119 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 10%
Student > Master 12 9%
Other 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 5 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 53%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 10%
Computer Science 7 5%
Mathematics 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 10 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
of 9,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 162,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,280 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 162,389 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them