↓ Skip to main content

A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-s10-s7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy J Jay, John D Eblen, Yun Zhang, Mikael Benson, Andy D Perkins, Arnold M Saxton, Brynn H Voy, Elissa J Chesler, Michael A Langston

Abstract

A wealth of clustering algorithms has been applied to gene co-expression experiments. These algorithms cover a broad range of approaches, from conventional techniques such as k-means and hierarchical clustering, to graphical approaches such as k-clique communities, weighted gene co-expression networks (WGCNA) and paraclique. Comparison of these methods to evaluate their relative effectiveness provides guidance to algorithm selection, development and implementation. Most prior work on comparative clustering evaluation has focused on parametric methods. Graph theoretical methods are recent additions to the tool set for the global analysis and decomposition of microarray co-expression matrices that have not generally been included in earlier methodological comparisons. In the present study, a variety of parametric and graph theoretical clustering algorithms are compared using well-characterized transcriptomic data at a genome scale from Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Cuba 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 18%
Computer Science 8 13%
Engineering 4 6%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#15,321,665
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,371
of 7,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,919
of 164,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#69
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,279 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 164,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.