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 |
Recommendations for the design and analysis of epigenome-wide association studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Methods, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nmeth.2632 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karin B Michels, Alexandra M Binder, Sarah Dedeurwaerder, Charles B Epstein, John M Greally, Ivo Gut, E Andres Houseman, Benedetta Izzi, Karl T Kelsey, Alexander Meissner, Aleksandar Milosavljevic, Kimberly D Siegmund, Christoph Bock, Rafael A Irizarry |
| Abstract |
Epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) hold promise for the detection of new regulatory mechanisms that may be susceptible to modification by environmental and lifestyle factors affecting susceptibility to disease. Epigenome-wide screening methods cover an increasing number of CpG sites, but the complexity of the data poses a challenge to separating robust signals from noise. Appropriate study design, a detailed a priori analysis plan and validation of results are essential to minimize the danger of false positive results and contribute to a unified approach. Epigenome-wide mapping studies in homogenous cell populations will inform our understanding of normal variation in the methylome that is not associated with disease or aging. Here we review concepts for conducting a stringent and powerful EWAS, including the choice of analyzed tissue, sources of variability and systematic biases, outline analytical solutions to EWAS-specific problems and highlight caveats in interpretation of data generated from samples with cellular heterogeneity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 5 | 20% |
| United States | 5 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 48% |
| Members of the public | 10 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 628 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 2% |
| Spain | 5 | <1% |
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| China | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 2% |
| Unknown | 585 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 180 | 29% |
| Researcher | 160 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 58 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 34 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 5% |
| Other | 102 | 16% |
| Unknown | 61 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 237 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 114 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 19 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 3% |
| Other | 84 | 13% |
| Unknown | 81 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 2021.
All research outputs
#1,520,590
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#1,833
of 5,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,440
of 219,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#37
of 90 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 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 219,695 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.