↓ Skip to main content

BioModels Database: An enhanced, curated and annotated resource for published quantitative kinetic models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
436 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
345 Mendeley
citeulike
16 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
BioModels Database: An enhanced, curated and annotated resource for published quantitative kinetic models
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, June 2010
DOI 10.1186/1752-0509-4-92
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Li, Marco Donizelli, Nicolas Rodriguez, Harish Dharuri, Lukas Endler, Vijayalakshmi Chelliah, Lu Li, Enuo He, Arnaud Henry, Melanie I Stefan, Jacky L Snoep, Michael Hucka, Nicolas Le Novère, Camille Laibe

Abstract

Quantitative models of biochemical and cellular systems are used to answer a variety of questions in the biological sciences. The number of published quantitative models is growing steadily thanks to increasing interest in the use of models as well as the development of improved software systems and the availability of better, cheaper computer hardware. To maximise the benefits of this growing body of models, the field needs centralised model repositories that will encourage, facilitate and promote model dissemination and reuse. Ideally, the models stored in these repositories should be extensively tested and encoded in community-supported and standardised formats. In addition, the models and their components should be cross-referenced with other resources in order to allow their unambiguous identification.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 4%
United Kingdom 11 3%
Germany 9 3%
Spain 3 <1%
Russia 2 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 8 2%
Unknown 292 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 104 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 91 26%
Student > Master 25 7%
Student > Bachelor 25 7%
Professor 18 5%
Other 55 16%
Unknown 27 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 138 40%
Computer Science 59 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 14%
Engineering 18 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Other 36 10%
Unknown 33 10%

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 27 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,100,272
of 18,796,975 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#301
of 1,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,833
of 305,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,796,975 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,127 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 305,191 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.