↓ 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
45 X users
reddit
3 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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.
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

Amy B Hart, Harriet de Wit, Abraham A Palmer

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Norway 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 82 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 10%
Professor 8 9%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 16 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 29 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,030,200
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychopharmacology
#445
of 5,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,820
of 292,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychopharmacology
#8
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 5,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 292,638 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.