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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Reviews Genetics, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nrg3472 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Evangelos Evangelou, John P. A. Ioannidis |
| Abstract |
Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) has become a popular method for discovering genetic risk variants. Here, we overview both widely applied and newer statistical methods for GWAS meta-analysis, including issues of interpretation and assessment of sources of heterogeneity. We also discuss extensions of these meta-analysis methods to complex data. Where possible, we provide guidelines for researchers who are planning to use these methods. Furthermore, we address special issues that may arise for meta-analysis of sequencing data and rare variants. Finally, we discuss challenges and solutions surrounding the goals of making meta-analysis data publicly available and building powerful consortia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 | 47% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 12% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 12% |
| Russia | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 59% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 41% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,094 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 22 | 2% |
| Germany | 8 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | <1% |
| France | 5 | <1% |
| Belgium | 4 | <1% |
| Australia | 3 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Austria | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 23 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1016 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 302 | 28% |
| Researcher | 229 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 138 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 80 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 50 | 5% |
| Other | 176 | 16% |
| Unknown | 119 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 413 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 193 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 126 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 55 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 28 | 3% |
| Other | 113 | 10% |
| Unknown | 166 | 15% |
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 01 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,427,110
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Genetics
#1,021
of 2,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,889
of 207,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Genetics
#17
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 2,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 207,476 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 90% 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 65% of its contemporaries.