↓ Skip to main content

Performance of risk prediction for inflammatory bowel disease based on genotyping platform and genomic risk score method

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genetics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
76 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.
Article details
Title
Performance of risk prediction for inflammatory bowel disease based on genotyping platform and genomic risk score method
Published in
BMC Medical Genetics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12881-017-0451-2
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Predicting risk of disease from genotypes is being increasingly proposed for a variety of diagnostic and prognostic purposes. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a large number of genome-wide significant susceptibility loci for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), two subtypes of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Recent studies have demonstrated that including only loci that are significantly associated with disease in the prediction model has low predictive power and that power can substantially be improved using a polygenic approach. We performed a comprehensive analysis of risk prediction models using large case-control cohorts genotyped for 909,763 GWAS SNPs or 123,437 SNPs on the custom designed Immunochip using four prediction methods (polygenic score, best linear genomic prediction, elastic-net regularization and a Bayesian mixture model). We used the area under the curve (AUC) to assess prediction performance for discovery populations with different sample sizes and number of SNPs within cross-validation. On average, the Bayesian mixture approach had the best prediction performance. Using cross-validation we found little differences in prediction performance between GWAS and Immunochip, despite the GWAS array providing a 10 times larger effective genome-wide coverage. The prediction performance using Immunochip is largely due to the power of the initial GWAS for its marker selection and its low cost that enabled larger sample sizes. The predictive ability of the genomic risk score based on Immunochip was replicated in external data, with AUC of 0.75 for CD and 0.70 for UC. CD patients with higher risk scores demonstrated clinical characteristics typically associated with a more severe disease course including ileal location and earlier age at diagnosis. Our analyses demonstrate that the power of genomic risk prediction for IBD is mainly due to strongly associated SNPs with considerable effect sizes. Additional SNPs that are only tagged by high-density GWAS arrays and low or rare-variants over-represented in the high-density region on the Immunochip contribute little to prediction accuracy. Although a quantitative assessment of IBD risk for an individual is not currently possible, we show sufficient power of genomic risk scores to stratify IBD risk among individuals at diagnosis.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 23 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,821,752
of 27,788,586 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genetics
#153
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,083
of 329,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genetics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 329,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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