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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Enhancing the Power of Genetic Association Studies through the Use of Silver Standard Cases Derived from Electronic Medical Records
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0063481 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew McDavid, Paul K. Crane, Katherine M. Newton, David R. Crosslin, Wayne McCormick, Noah Weston, Kelly Ehrlich, Eugene Hart, Robert Harrison, Walter A. Kukull, Carla Rottscheit, Peggy Peissig, Elisha Stefanski, Catherine A. McCarty, Rebecca Lynn Zuvich, Marylyn D. Ritchie, Jonathan L. Haines, Joshua C. Denny, Gerard D. Schellenberg, Mariza de Andrade, Iftikhar Kullo, Rongling Li, Daniel Mirel, Andrew Crenshaw, James D. Bowen, Ge Li, Debby Tsuang, Susan McCurry, Linda Teri, Eric B. Larson, Gail P. Jarvik, Chris S. Carlson |
| Abstract |
The feasibility of using imperfectly phenotyped "silver standard" samples identified from electronic medical record diagnoses is considered in genetic association studies when these samples might be combined with an existing set of samples phenotyped with a gold standard technique. An analytic expression is derived for the power of a chi-square test of independence using either research-quality case/control samples alone, or augmented with silver standard data. The subset of the parameter space where inclusion of silver standard samples increases statistical power is identified. A case study of dementia subjects identified from electronic medical records from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network, combined with subjects from two studies specifically targeting dementia, verifies these results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 29% |
| Psychology | 7 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2013.
All research outputs
#14,390,749
of 23,818,521 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#120,076
of 203,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,475
of 199,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,566
of 4,565 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,818,521 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 199,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,565 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.