↓ Skip to main content

Systematic evaluation of personal genome services for Japanese individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Human Genetics, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Systematic evaluation of personal genome services for Japanese individuals
Published in
Journal of Human Genetics, September 2013
DOI 10.1038/jhg.2013.96
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takashi Kido, Minae Kawashima, Seiji Nishino, Melanie Swan, Naoyuki Kamatani, Atul J Butte

Abstract

Disease risk prediction (DRP) is one of the most important challenges in personal genome research. Although many direct-to-consumer genetic test (DTC) companies have begun to offer personal genome services for DRP, there is still no consensus on what constitutes a gold-standard service. Here, we systematically evaluated the distributions of DRPs from three DTC companies, that is, 23andMe, Navigenics and deCODEme, for 22 diseases using three Japanese samples. We systematically quantified and analyzed the differences between each DTC company's DRPs. Our independency test showed that the overall prediction results were correlated with each other, but not perfectly matched; less than onethird mismatching of the opposite direction occurred in eight diseases. Moreover, we found that the differences could mainly be attributed to four factors: (1) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) selection, (2) average risk estimation, (3) the disease risk calculation algorithm and (4) ethnicity adjustment. In particular, only 7.1% of SNPs over 22 diseases were reviewed by all three companies. Therefore, development of a universal core SNPs list for non-Caucasian samples will be important for achieving better prediction capacity for Japanese samples. This systematic methodology provides useful insights for improving the capacity of DRPs in future personal genome services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 34 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 24%
Computer Science 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 3 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 24 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,512,668
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Human Genetics
#134
of 1,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,212
of 204,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Human Genetics
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. 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 204,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.