↓ Skip to main content

Assessment and characterization of phenotypic heterogeneity of anxiety disorders across five large cohorts

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Assessment and characterization of phenotypic heterogeneity of anxiety disorders across five large cohorts
Published in
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/mpr.1519
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minyoung Lee, Steven H. Aggen, Takeshi Otowa, Enrique Castelao, Martin Preisig, Hans J. Grabe, Catharina A. Hartman, Albertine J. Oldehinkel, Christel M. Middeldorp, Henning Tiemeier, John M. Hettema

Abstract

To achieve sample sizes necessary for effectively conducting genome-wide association studies (GWASs), researchers often combine data from samples possessing multiple potential sources of heterogeneity. This is particularly relevant for psychiatric disorders, where symptom self-report, differing assessment instruments, and diagnostic comorbidity complicates the phenotypes and contribute to difficulties with detecting and replicating genetic association signals. We investigated sources of heterogeneity of anxiety disorders (ADs) across five large cohorts used in a GWAS meta-analysis project using a dimensional structural modeling approach including confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and measurement invariance (MI) testing. CFA indicated a single-factor model provided the best fit in each sample with the same pattern of factor loadings. MI testing indicated degrees of failure of metric and scalar invariance which depended on the inclusion of the effects of sex and age in the model. This is the first study to examine the phenotypic structure of psychiatric disorder phenotypes simultaneously across multiple, large cohorts used for GWAS. The analyses provide evidence for higher order invariance but possible break-down at more detailed levels that can be subtly influenced by included covariates, suggesting caution when combining such data. These methods have significance for large-scale collaborative studies that draw on multiple, potentially heterogeneous datasets. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 10 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 14 50%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
#328
of 425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,517
of 372,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 372,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.