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 |
ReMixT: clone-specific genomic structure estimation in cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-017-1267-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew W. McPherson, Andrew Roth, Gavin Ha, Cedric Chauve, Adi Steif, Camila P. E. de Souza, Peter Eirew, Alexandre Bouchard-Côté, Sam Aparicio, S. Cenk Sahinalp, Sohrab P. Shah |
| Abstract |
Somatic evolution of malignant cells produces tumors composed of multiple clonal populations, distinguished in part by rearrangements and copy number changes affecting chromosomal segments. Whole genome sequencing mixes the signals of sampled populations, diluting the signals of clone-specific aberrations, and complicating estimation of clone-specific genotypes. We introduce ReMixT, a method to unmix tumor and contaminating normal signals and jointly predict mixture proportions, clone-specific segment copy number, and clone specificity of breakpoints. ReMixT is free, open-source software and is available at http://bitbucket.org/dranew/remixt . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Montenegro | 1 | 7% |
| Sweden | 1 | 7% |
| Belgium | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 9 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,660,989
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#2,753
of 4,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,326
of 327,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#54
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,247 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.