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 |
Correspondence regarding Zhong et al., BMC Bioinformatics 2013 Mar 7;14:89
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-014-0347-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandre Kuhn |
| Abstract |
Computational expression deconvolution aims to estimate the contribution of individual cell populations to expression profiles measured in samples of heterogeneous composition. Zhong et al. recently proposed Digital Sorting Algorithm (BMC Bioinformatics 2013 Mar 7;14:89) and showed that they could accurately estimate population-specific expression levels and expression differences between two populations. They compared DSA with Population-Specific Expression Analysis (PSEA), a previous deconvolution method that we developed to detect expression changes occurring within the same population between two conditions (e.g. disease versus non-disease). However, Zhong et al. compared PSEA-derived specific expression levels across different cell populations. Specific expression levels obtained with PSEA cannot be directly compared across different populations as they are on a relative scale. They are accurate as we demonstrate by deconvolving the same dataset used by Zhong et al. and, importantly, allow for comparison of population-specific expression across conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 56% |
| Researcher | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 44% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,733,724
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,927
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,101
of 361,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#106
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 361,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.