↓ Skip to main content

Quality control and conduct of genome-wide association meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Protocols, April 2014
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
411 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
798 Mendeley
citeulike
8 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
Quality control and conduct of genome-wide association meta-analyses
Published in
Nature Protocols, April 2014
DOI 10.1038/nprot.2014.071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas W Winkler, Felix R Day, Damien C Croteau-Chonka, Andrew R Wood, Adam E Locke, Reedik Mägi, Teresa Ferreira, Tove Fall, Mariaelisa Graff, Anne E Justice, Jian'an Luan, Stefan Gustafsson, Joshua C Randall, Sailaja Vedantam, Tsegaselassie Workalemahu, Tuomas O Kilpeläinen, André Scherag, Tonu Esko, Zoltán Kutalik, Iris M Heid, Ruth J F Loos

Abstract

Rigorous organization and quality control (QC) are necessary to facilitate successful genome-wide association meta-analyses (GWAMAs) of statistics aggregated across multiple genome-wide association studies. This protocol provides guidelines for (i) organizational aspects of GWAMAs, and for (ii) QC at the study file level, the meta-level across studies and the meta-analysis output level. Real-world examples highlight issues experienced and solutions developed by the GIANT Consortium that has conducted meta-analyses including data from 125 studies comprising more than 330,000 individuals. We provide a general protocol for conducting GWAMAs and carrying out QC to minimize errors and to guarantee maximum use of the data. We also include details for the use of a powerful and flexible software package called EasyQC. Precise timings will be greatly influenced by consortium size. For consortia of comparable size to the GIANT Consortium, this protocol takes a minimum of about 10 months to complete.

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 798 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Chile 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 11 1%
Unknown 764 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 206 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 203 25%
Student > Master 70 9%
Student > Bachelor 62 8%
Other 35 4%
Other 122 15%
Unknown 100 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 219 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 177 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 113 14%
Neuroscience 36 5%
Computer Science 24 3%
Other 99 12%
Unknown 130 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 31 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,441,399
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Protocols
#911
of 2,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,768
of 245,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Protocols
#16
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 245,588 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 67% of its contemporaries.