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 |
Software for pre-processing Illumina next-generation sequencing short read sequences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Source Code for Biology and Medicine, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1751-0473-9-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chuming Chen, Sari S Khaleel, Hongzhan Huang, Cathy H Wu |
| Abstract |
When compared to Sanger sequencing technology, next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are hindered by shorter sequence read length, higher base-call error rate, non-uniform coverage, and platform-specific sequencing artifacts. These characteristics lower the quality of their downstream analyses, e.g. de novo and reference-based assembly, by introducing sequencing artifacts and errors that may contribute to incorrect interpretation of data. Although many tools have been developed for quality control and pre-processing of NGS data, none of them provide flexible and comprehensive trimming options in conjunction with parallel processing to expedite pre-processing of large NGS datasets. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 29% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 1% |
| Unknown | 286 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 69 | 23% |
| Researcher | 61 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 45 | 15% |
| Unknown | 37 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 129 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 60 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 19 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 30 | 10% |
| Unknown | 52 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 14 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,763,803
of 23,530,272 outputs
Outputs from Source Code for Biology and Medicine
#14
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,243
of 229,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Source Code for Biology and Medicine
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,530,272 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 229,077 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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