↓ Skip to main content

Differential gene expression in disease: a comparison between high-throughput studies and the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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.
Title
Differential gene expression in disease: a comparison between high-throughput studies and the literature
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12920-017-0293-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raul Rodriguez-Esteban, Xiaoyu Jiang

Abstract

Differential gene expression is important to understand the biological differences between healthy and diseased states. Two common sources of differential gene expression data are microarray studies and the biomedical literature. With the aid of text mining and gene expression analysis we have examined the comparative properties of these two sources of differential gene expression data. The literature shows a preference for reporting genes associated to higher fold changes in microarray data, rather than genes that are simply significantly differentially expressed. Thus, the resemblance between the literature and microarray data increases when the fold-change threshold for microarray data is increased. Moreover, the literature has a reporting preference for differentially expressed genes that (1) are overexpressed rather than underexpressed; (2) are overexpressed in multiple diseases; and (3) are popular in the biomedical literature at large. Additionally, the degree to which diseases are similar depends on whether microarray data or the literature is used to compare them. Finally, vaguely-qualified reports of differential expression magnitudes in the literature have only small correlation with microarray fold-change data. Reporting biases of differential gene expression in the literature can be affecting our appreciation of disease biology and of the degree of similarity that actually exists between different diseases.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Master 13 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 3%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 60 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Computer Science 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 66 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,926,237
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#321
of 1,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,308
of 324,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,230 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 324,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.