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 |
Comparing Statistical Methods for Constructing Large Scale Gene Networks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0029348 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey D. Allen, Yang Xie, Min Chen, Luc Girard, Guanghua Xiao |
| Abstract |
The gene regulatory network (GRN) reveals the regulatory relationships among genes and can provide a systematic understanding of molecular mechanisms underlying biological processes. The importance of computer simulations in understanding cellular processes is now widely accepted; a variety of algorithms have been developed to study these biological networks. The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive evaluation and a practical guide to aid in choosing statistical methods for constructing large scale GRNs. Using both simulation studies and a real application in E. coli data, we compare different methods in terms of sensitivity and specificity in identifying the true connections and the hub genes, the ease of use, and computational speed. Our results show that these algorithms performed reasonably well, and each method has its own advantages: (1) GeneNet, WGCNA (Weighted Correlation Network Analysis), and ARACNE (Algorithm for the Reconstruction of Accurate Cellular Networks) performed well in constructing the global network structure; (2) GeneNet and SPACE (Sparse PArtial Correlation Estimation) performed well in identifying a few connections with high specificity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 5% |
| Brazil | 4 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 2% |
| Unknown | 312 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 120 | 34% |
| Researcher | 70 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 45 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 18 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 51 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 162 | 46% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 53 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 38 | 11% |
| Mathematics | 18 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 35 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 August 2012.
All research outputs
#2,348,090
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#29,966
of 193,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,355
of 245,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#381
of 3,288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 245,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,288 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.