↓ Skip to main content

Leveraging Prior Information to Detect Causal Variants via Multi-Variant Regression

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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.
Title
Leveraging Prior Information to Detect Causal Variants via Multi-Variant Regression
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nanye Long, Samuel P. Dickson, Jessica M. Maia, Hee Shin Kim, Qianqian Zhu, Andrew S. Allen

Abstract

Although many methods are available to test sequence variants for association with complex diseases and traits, methods that specifically seek to identify causal variants are less developed. Here we develop and evaluate a Bayesian hierarchical regression method that incorporates prior information on the likelihood of variant causality through weighting of variant effects. By simulation studies using both simulated and real sequence variants, we compared a standard single variant test for analyzing variant-disease association with the proposed method using different weighting schemes. We found that by leveraging linkage disequilibrium of variants with known GWAS signals and sequence conservation (phastCons), the proposed method provides a powerful approach for detecting causal variants while controlling false positives.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 8%
Hong Kong 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 35 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Computer Science 5 13%
Mathematics 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 2 5%
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 18 January 2014.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,481
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,276
of 210,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#85
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 210,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.