| Title |
Inclusion of Gene-Gene and Gene-Environment Interactions Unlikely to Dramatically Improve Risk Prediction for Complex Diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Human Genetics, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.04.017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hugues Aschard, Jinbo Chen, Marilyn C. Cornelis, Lori B. Chibnik, Elizabeth W. Karlson, Peter Kraft |
| Abstract |
Genome-wide association studies have identified hundreds of common genetic variants associated with the risk of multifactorial diseases. However, their impact on discrimination and risk prediction is limited. It has been suggested that the identification of gene-gene (G-G) and gene-environment (G-E) interactions would improve disease prediction and facilitate prevention. We conducted a simulation study to explore the potential improvement in discrimination if G-G and G-E interactions exist and are known. We used three diseases (breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis) as motivating examples. We show that the inclusion of G-G and G-E interaction effects in risk-prediction models is unlikely to dramatically improve the discrimination ability of these models. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 62% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 54% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Thailand | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Professor | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 19 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,035,072
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Human Genetics
#1,099
of 5,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,049
of 177,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Human Genetics
#11
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 177,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.