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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
In-silico human genomics with GeneCards
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Genomics, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-7364-5-6-709 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gil Stelzer, Irina Dalah, Tsippi Iny Stein, Yigeal Satanower, Naomi Rosen, Noam Nativ, Danit Oz-Levi, Tsviya Olender, Frida Belinky, Iris Bahir, Hagit Krug, Paul Perco, Bernd Mayer, Eugene Kolker, Marilyn Safran, Doron Lancet |
| Abstract |
Since 1998, the bioinformatics, systems biology, genomics and medical communities have enjoyed a synergistic relationship with the GeneCards database of human genes (http://www.genecards.org). This human gene compendium was created to help to introduce order into the increasing chaos of information flow. As a consequence of viewing details and deep links related to specific genes, users have often requested enhanced capabilities, such that, over time, GeneCards has blossomed into a suite of tools (including GeneDecks, GeneALaCart, GeneLoc, GeneNote and GeneAnnot) for a variety of analyses of both single human genes and sets thereof. In this paper, we focus on inhouse and external research activities which have been enabled, enhanced, complemented and, in some cases, motivated by GeneCards. In turn, such interactions have often inspired and propelled improvements in GeneCards. We describe here the evolution and architecture of this project, including examples of synergistic applications in diverse areas such as synthetic lethality in cancer, the annotation of genetic variations in disease, omics integration in a systems biology approach to kidney disease, and bioinformatics tools. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ukraine | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 22% |
| Researcher | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
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 22 December 2019.
All research outputs
#8,882,501
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#222
of 577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,484
of 148,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 148,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.