↓ Skip to main content

Pathway analysis following association study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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.
Article details
Title
Pathway analysis following association study
Published in
BMC Proceedings, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1753-6561-5-s9-s18
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Genome-wide association studies often emphasize single-nucleotide polymorphisms with the smallest p-values with less attention given to single-nucleotide polymorphisms not ranked near the top. We suggest that gene pathways contain valuable information that can enable identification of additional associations. We used gene set information to identify disease-related pathways using three methods: gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), empirical enrichment p-values, and Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA). Association tests were performed for common single-nucleotide polymorphisms and aggregated rare variants with traits Q1 and Q4. These pathway methods were evaluated by type I error, power, and the ranking of the VEGF pathway, the gene set used in the simulation model. GSEA and IPA had high power for detecting the VEGF pathway for trait Q1 (91.2% and 93%, respectively). These two methods were conservative with deflated type I errors (0.0083 and 0.0072, respectively). The VEGF pathway ranked 1 or 2 in 123 of 200 replicates using IPA and ranked among the top 5 in 114 of 200 replicates for GSEA. The empirical enrichment method had lower power and higher type I error. Thus pathway analysis approaches may be useful in identifying biological pathways that influence disease outcomes.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 37 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 %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 3%
Unknown 33 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 19%
Computer Science 2 5%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 September 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,874
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#265
of 374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,929
of 240,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#23
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 374 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 240,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.