↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines for the design, analysis and interpretation of ‘omics’ data: focus on human endometrium

Overview of attention for article published in Human Reproduction Update, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Guidelines for the design, analysis and interpretation of ‘omics’ data: focus on human endometrium
Published in
Human Reproduction Update, September 2013
DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmt048
Pubmed ID
Authors

Signe Altmäe, Francisco J. Esteban, Anneli Stavreus-Evers, Carlos Simón, Linda Giudice, Bruce A. Lessey, Jose A. Horcajadas, Nick S. Macklon, Thomas D'Hooghe, Cristina Campoy, Bart C. Fauser, Lois A. Salamonsen, Andres Salumets

Abstract

'Omics' high-throughput analyses, including genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics, are widely applied in human endometrial studies. Analysis of endometrial transcriptome patterns in physiological and pathophysiological conditions has been to date the most commonly applied 'omics' technique in human endometrium. As the technologies improve, proteomics holds the next big promise for this field. The 'omics' technologies have undoubtedly advanced our knowledge of human endometrium in relation to fertility and different diseases. Nevertheless, the challenges arising from the vast amount of data generated and the broad variation of 'omics' profiling according to different environments and stimuli make it difficult to assess the validity, reproducibility and interpretation of such 'omics' data. With the expansion of 'omics' analyses in the study of the endometrium, there is a growing need to develop guidelines for the design of studies, and the analysis and interpretation of 'omics' data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 174 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 21%
Researcher 33 18%
Student > Master 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 17 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 22%
Computer Science 9 5%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 27 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 September 2013.
All research outputs
#9,622,569
of 12,027,003 outputs
Outputs from Human Reproduction Update
#693
of 743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,988
of 160,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Reproduction Update
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,027,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 160,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.