↓ Skip to main content

Covariate selection for association screening in multiphenotype genetic studies

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Genetics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
60 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Covariate selection for association screening in multiphenotype genetic studies
Published in
Nature Genetics, October 2017
DOI 10.1038/ng.3975
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugues Aschard, Vincent Guillemot, Bjarni Vilhjalmsson, Chirag J Patel, David Skurnik, Chun J Ye, Brian Wolpin, Peter Kraft, Noah Zaitlen

Abstract

Testing for associations in big data faces the problem of multiple comparisons, wherein true signals are difficult to detect on the background of all associations queried. This difficulty is particularly salient in human genetic association studies, in which phenotypic variation is often driven by numerous variants of small effect. The current strategy to improve power to identify these weak associations consists of applying standard marginal statistical approaches and increasing study sample sizes. Although successful, this approach does not leverage the environmental and genetic factors shared among the multiple phenotypes collected in contemporary cohorts. Here we developed covariates for multiphenotype studies (CMS), an approach that improves power when correlated phenotypes are measured on the same samples. Our analyses of real and simulated data provide direct evidence that correlated phenotypes can be used to achieve increases in power to levels often surpassing the power gained by a twofold increase in sample size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 24%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Master 9 7%
Professor 8 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 26 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 26 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,250,865
of 25,391,471 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#1,966
of 7,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,003
of 331,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#38
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,471 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 331,445 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 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.