↓ Skip to main content

Efficient Genome-wide Association in Biobanks Using Topic Modeling Identifies Multiple Novel Disease Loci

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Efficient Genome-wide Association in Biobanks Using Topic Modeling Identifies Multiple Novel Disease Loci
Published in
Molecular Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.2119/molmed.2017.00100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas H. McCoy, Victor M. Castro, Leslie A. Snapper, Kamber L. Hart, Roy H. Perlis

Abstract

Biobanks and national registries represent a powerful tool for genomic discovery, but rely on diagnostic codes that may be unreliable and fail to capture the relationship between related diagnoses. We developed an efficient means of conducting genome-wide association studies using combinations of diagnostic codes from electronic health records (EHR) for 10845 participants in a biobanking program at two large academic medical centers. Specifically, we applied latent Dirichilet allocation to fit 50 disease topics based on diagnostic codes, then conducted genome-wide common-variant association for each topic. In sensitivity analysis, these results were contrasted with those obtained from traditional single-diagnosis phenome-wide association analysis, as well as those in which only a subset of diagnostic codes are included per topic. In meta-analysis across three biobank cohorts, we identified 23 disease-associated loci with p<1e-15, including previously associated autoimmune disease loci. In all cases, observed significant associations were of greater magnitude than for single phenome-wide diagnostic codes, and incorporation of less strongly-loading diagnostic codes enhanced association. This strategy provides a more efficient means of phenome-wide association in biobanks with coded clinical data.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%
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 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#14,366,847
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Medicine
#772
of 1,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,680
of 316,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Medicine
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 316,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them