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
| Chapter title |
PHLAT: Inference of High-Resolution HLA Types from RNA and Whole Exome Sequencing
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 13 |
| Book title |
HLA Typing
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-8546-3_13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-8545-6, 978-1-4939-8546-3
|
| Authors |
Yu Bai, David Wang, Wen Fury, Bai, Yu, Wang, David, Fury, Wen |
| Abstract |
Inferring HLA types from genome-wide sequencing data has gained growing attention with the development of new cost-efficient sequencing technologies and the increasing need to integrate HLA types with transcriptomic or other genomic information for insights into immune-mediated diseases, vaccination, and cancer immunotherapy. PHLAT is a computational tool designed for high-resolution (4-digit) typing of the major class I and class II HLA genes using RNAseq or exome sequencing data as input. We illustrate here how PHLAT can be installed, configured, and executed. This document also provides guidance for how to read and interpret the output results. Finally, the best practices of using PHLAT are also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 17% |
| Australia | 2 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 5 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 35% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,782,971
of 23,923,788 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#1,564
of 13,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,888
of 447,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#136
of 1,479 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,923,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,508 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 447,933 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,479 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.