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 |
A comparison of feature selection and classification methods in DNA methylation studies using the Illumina Infinium platform
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-13-59 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna Zhuang, Martin Widschwendter, Andrew E Teschendorff |
| Abstract |
The 27k Illumina Infinium Methylation Beadchip is a popular high-throughput technology that allows the methylation state of over 27,000 CpGs to be assayed. While feature selection and classification methods have been comprehensively explored in the context of gene expression data, relatively little is known as to how best to perform feature selection or classification in the context of Illumina Infinium methylation data. Given the rising importance of epigenomics in cancer and other complex genetic diseases, and in view of the upcoming epigenome wide association studies, it is critical to identify the statistical methods that offer improved inference in this novel context. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 28% |
| Researcher | 45 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 33 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 53 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 37 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 28 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 12% |
| Engineering | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 11 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,875,113
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#469
of 7,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,943
of 163,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#11
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 163,178 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 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.