↓ Skip to main content

Metataxonomic and Metagenomic Approaches vs. Culture-Based Techniques for Clinical Pathology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 Mendeley
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
Metataxonomic and Metagenomic Approaches vs. Culture-Based Techniques for Clinical Pathology
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00484
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah K. Hilton, Eduardo Castro-Nallar, Marcos Pérez-Losada, Ian Toma, Timothy A. McCaffrey, Eric P. Hoffman, Marc O. Siegel, Gary L. Simon, W. Evan Johnson, Keith A. Crandall

Abstract

Diagnoses that are both timely and accurate are critically important for patients with life-threatening or drug resistant infections. Technological improvements in High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS) have led to its use in pathogen detection and its application in clinical diagnoses of infectious diseases. The present study compares two HTS methods, 16S rRNA marker gene sequencing (metataxonomics) and whole metagenomic shotgun sequencing (metagenomics), in their respective abilities to match the same diagnosis as traditional culture methods (culture inference) for patients with ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP). The metagenomic analysis was able to produce the same diagnosis as culture methods at the species-level for five of the six samples, while the metataxonomic analysis was only able to produce results with the same species-level identification as culture for two of the six samples. These results indicate that metagenomic analyses have the accuracy needed for a clinical diagnostic tool, but full integration in diagnostic protocols is contingent on technological improvements to decrease turnaround time and lower costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 228 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 16%
Researcher 35 15%
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 26 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 52 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 17 7%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 67 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,083,849
of 25,452,734 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,565
of 29,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,510
of 315,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#82
of 543 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,452,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 315,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 543 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.