↓ Skip to main content

Why model?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Why model?
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2014.00021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olaf Wolkenhauer

Abstract

Next generation sequencing technologies are bringing about a renaissance of mining approaches. A comprehensive picture of the genetic landscape of an individual patient will be useful, for example, to identify groups of patients that do or do not respond to certain therapies. The high expectations may however not be satisfied if the number of patient groups with similar characteristics is going to be very large. I therefore doubt that mining sequence data will give us an understanding of why and when therapies work. For understanding the mechanisms underlying diseases, an alternative approach is to model small networks in quantitative mechanistic detail, to elucidate the role of gene and proteins in dynamically changing the functioning of cells. Here an obvious critique is that these models consider too few components, compared to what might be relevant for any particular cell function. I show here that mining approaches and dynamical systems theory are two ends of a spectrum of methodologies to choose from. Drawing upon personal experience in numerous interdisciplinary collaborations, I provide guidance on how to model by discussing the question "Why model?"

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
France 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 143 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 27%
Researcher 41 26%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Master 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 14 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Engineering 10 6%
Computer Science 10 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 26 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,864,164
of 24,742,536 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,283
of 15,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,185
of 317,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#42
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,742,536 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 317,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.