↓ Skip to main content

BACA: bubble chArt to compare annotations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
BACA: bubble chArt to compare annotations
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0477-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vittorio Fortino, Harri Alenius, Dario Greco

Abstract

BackgroundDAVID is the most popular tool for interpreting large lists of gene/proteins classically produced in high-throughput experiments. However, the use of DAVID website becomes difficult when analyzing multiple gene lists, for it does not provide an adequate visualization tool to show/compare multiple enrichment results in a concise and informative manner.ResultWe implemented a new R-based graphical tool, BACA (Bubble chArt to Compare Annotations), which uses the DAVID web service for cross-comparing enrichment analysis results derived from multiple large gene lists. BACA is implemented in R and is freely available at the CRAN repository (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BACA/).ConclusionThe package BACA allows R users to combine multiple annotation charts into one output graph by passing DAVID website.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Computer Science 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 6 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,045,234
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,691
of 7,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,829
of 354,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#59
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 354,851 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 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 55% of its contemporaries.