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 |
Comparison of insertion/deletion calling algorithms on human next-generation sequencing data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-7-864 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dalia H Ghoneim, Jason R Myers, Emily Tuttle, Alex R Paciorkowski |
| Abstract |
Insertions/deletions (indels) are the second most common type of genomic variant and the most common type of structural variant. Identification of indels in next generation sequencing data is a challenge, and algorithms commonly used for indel detection have not been compared on a research cohort of human subject genomic data. Guidelines for the optimal detection of biologically significant indels are limited. We analyzed three sets of human next generation sequencing data (48 samples of a 200 gene target exon sequencing, 45 samples of whole exome sequencing, and 2 samples of whole genome sequencing) using three algorithms for indel detection (Pindel, Genome Analysis Tool Kit's UnifiedGenotyper and HaplotypeCaller). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Israel | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 105 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 21% |
| Researcher | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 42 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
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 30 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,501
of 4,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,842
of 369,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#55
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 369,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.