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 |
MixHMM: Inferring Copy Number Variation and Allelic Imbalance Using SNP Arrays and Tumor Samples Mixed with Stromal Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0010909 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zongzhi Liu, Ao Li, Vincent Schulz, Min Chen, David Tuck |
| Abstract |
Genotyping platforms such as single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays are powerful tools to study genomic aberrations in cancer samples. Allele specific information from SNP arrays provides valuable information for interpreting copy number variation (CNV) and allelic imbalance including loss-of-heterozygosity (LOH) beyond that obtained from the total DNA signal available from array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) platforms. Several algorithms based on hidden Markov models (HMMs) have been designed to detect copy number changes and copy-neutral LOH making use of the allele information on SNP arrays. However heterogeneity in clinical samples, due to stromal contamination and somatic alterations, complicates analysis and interpretation of these data. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 38% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 3 | 5% |
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 12 July 2012.
All research outputs
#12,656,192
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#97,784
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,409
of 95,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#540
of 688 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 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 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 95,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 688 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.