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 |
Universal Count Correction for High-Throughput Sequencing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003494 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tatsunori B. Hashimoto, Matthew D. Edwards, David K. Gifford |
| Abstract |
We show that existing RNA-seq, DNase-seq, and ChIP-seq data exhibit overdispersed per-base read count distributions that are not matched to existing computational method assumptions. To compensate for this overdispersion we introduce a nonparametric and universal method for processing per-base sequencing read count data called FIXSEQ. We demonstrate that FIXSEQ substantially improves the performance of existing RNA-seq, DNase-seq, and ChIP-seq analysis tools when compared with existing alternatives. |
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 States | 17 | 36% |
| France | 5 | 11% |
| Germany | 3 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 28 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 18 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 7% |
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Denmark | 2 | 1% |
| Norway | 2 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Unknown | 157 | 81% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 62 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 30% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 6% |
| Professor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 100 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 46 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 5 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 31 December 2019.
All research outputs
#942,839
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#706
of 9,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,986
of 236,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#14
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 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 9,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 236,582 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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 90% of its contemporaries.