↓ Skip to main content

Candidate Gene Studies of a Promising Intermediate Phenotype: Failure to Replicate

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychopharmacology, December 2012
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
37 X users
reddit
4 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Candidate Gene Studies of a Promising Intermediate Phenotype: Failure to Replicate
Published in
Neuropsychopharmacology, December 2012
DOI 10.1038/npp.2012.245
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Many candidate gene studies use 'intermediate phenotypes' instead of disease diagnoses. It has been proposed that intermediate phenotypes have simpler genetic architectures such that individual alleles account for a larger percentage of trait variance. This implies that smaller samples can be used to identify genetic associations. Pharmacogenomic drug challenge studies may be an especially promising class of intermediate phenotype. We previously conducted a series of 12 candidate gene analyses of acute subjective and physiological responses to amphetamine in 99-162 healthy human volunteers (ADORA2A, SLC6A3, BDNF, SLC6A4, CSNK1E, SLC6A2, DRD2, FAAH, COMT, OPRM1). Here, we report our attempt to replicate these findings in over 200 additional participants ascertained using identical methodology. We were unable to replicate any of our previous findings. These results raise critical issues related to non-replication of candidate gene studies, such as power, sample size, multiple testing within and between studies, publication bias and the expectation that true allelic effect sizes are similar to those reported in genome-wide association studies. Many of these factors may have contributed to our failure to replicate our previous findings. Our results should instill caution in those considering similarly designed studies.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Norway 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 90 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 9%
Professor 8 8%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 14 October 2025.
All research outputs
#1,228,748
of 34,167,806 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychopharmacology
#491
of 6,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,176
of 343,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychopharmacology
#7
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,167,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 343,756 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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.