↓ Skip to main content

Linear combination test for gene set analysis of a continuous phenotype

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Linear combination test for gene set analysis of a continuous phenotype
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irina Dinu, Xiaoming Wang, Linda E Kelemen, Shabnam Vatanpour, Saumyadipta Pyne

Abstract

Gene set analysis (GSA) methods test the association of sets of genes with a phenotype in gene expression microarray studies. Many GSA methods have been proposed, especially methods for use with a binary phenotype. Equally, if not more importantly however, is the ability to test the enrichment of a gene signature or pathway against the continuous phenotypes which are routinely and commonly observed in, for example, clinicopathological measurements. It is not always easy or meaningful to dichotomize continuous phenotypes into two classes, and attempting to do this may lead to the inaccurate classification of samples, which would affect the downstream enrichment analysis. In the present study, we have build on recent efforts to incorporate correlation structure within gene sets and pathways into the GSA test statistic. To address the issue of continuous phenotypes directly without the need for artificial discrete classification and thus increase the power of the test while ensuring computational efficiency and rigor, new GSA methods that can incorporate a covariance matrix estimator for a continuous phenotype may present an effective approach.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 7%
Germany 1 4%
Norway 1 4%
Brazil 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 21 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 19%
Computer Science 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 July 2013.
All research outputs
#14,755,210
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,036
of 7,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,910
of 194,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#65
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 194,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.