↓ Skip to main content

Multi-site study of additive genetic effects on fractional anisotropy of cerebral white matter: Comparing meta and megaanalytical approaches for data pooling

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
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
Multi-site study of additive genetic effects on fractional anisotropy of cerebral white matter: Comparing meta and megaanalytical approaches for data pooling
Published in
NeuroImage, March 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Kochunov, Neda Jahanshad, Emma Sprooten, Thomas E. Nichols, René C. Mandl, Laura Almasy, Tom Booth, Rachel M. Brouwer, Joanne E. Curran, Greig I. de Zubicaray, Rali Dimitrova, Ravi Duggirala, Peter T. Fox, L. Elliot Hong, Bennett A. Landman, Hervé Lemaitre, Lorna M. Lopez, Nicholas G. Martin, Katie L. McMahon, Braxton D. Mitchell, Rene L. Olvera, Charles P. Peterson, John M. Starr, Jessika E. Sussmann, Arthur W. Toga, Joanna M. Wardlaw, Margaret J. Wright, Susan N. Wright, Mark E. Bastin, Andrew M. McIntosh, Dorret I. Boomsma, René S. Kahn, Anouk den Braber, Eco J.C. de Geus, Ian J. Deary, Hilleke E. Hulshoff Pol, Douglas E. Williamson, John Blangero, Dennis van 't Ent, Paul M. Thompson, David C. Glahn

Abstract

Combining datasets across independent studies can boost statistical power by increasing the numbers of observations and can achieve more accurate estimates of effect sizes. This is especially important for genetic studies where a large number of observations are required to obtain sufficient power to detect and replicate genetic effects. There is a need to develop and evaluate methods for joint-analytical analyses of rich datasets collected in imaging genetics studies. The ENIGMA-DTI consortium is developing and evaluating approaches for obtaining pooled estimates of heritability through meta-and mega-genetic analytical approaches, to estimate the general additive genetic contributions to the intersubject variance in fractional anisotropy (FA) measured from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We used the ENIGMA-DTI data harmonization protocol for uniform processing of DTI data from multiple sites. We evaluated this protocol in five family-based cohorts providing data from a total of 2248 children and adults (ages: 9-85) collected with various imaging protocols. We used the imaging genetics analysis tool, SOLAR-Eclipse, to combine twin and family data from Dutch, Australian and Mexican-American cohorts into one large "mega-family". We showed that heritability estimates may vary from one cohort to another. We used two meta-analytical (the sample-size and standard-error weighted) approaches and a mega-genetic analysis to calculate heritability estimates across-population. We performed leave-one-out analysis of the joint estimates of heritability, removing a different cohort each time to understand the estimate variability. Overall, meta- and mega-genetic analyses of heritability produced robust estimates of heritability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 147 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 24%
Researcher 28 18%
Student > Master 15 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 8%
Professor 12 8%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 30 19%
Psychology 26 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 10%
Engineering 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 37 24%
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 29 May 2023.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#9,480
of 12,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,070
of 249,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#100
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 12,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 249,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.