↓ Skip to main content

Meta-Analysis of Repository Data: Impact of Data Regularization on NIMH Schizophrenia Linkage Results

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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.
Title
Meta-Analysis of Repository Data: Impact of Data Regularization on NIMH Schizophrenia Linkage Results
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084696
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly A. Walters, Yungui Huang, Marco Azaro, Kathleen Tobin, Thomas Lehner, Linda M. Brzustowicz, Veronica J. Vieland

Abstract

Human geneticists are increasingly turning to study designs based on very large sample sizes to overcome difficulties in studying complex disorders. This in turn almost always requires multi-site data collection and processing of data through centralized repositories. While such repositories offer many advantages, including the ability to return to previously collected data to apply new analytic techniques, they also have some limitations. To illustrate, we reviewed data from seven older schizophrenia studies available from the NIMH-funded Center for Collaborative Genomic Studies on Mental Disorders, also known as the Human Genetics Initiative (HGI), and assessed the impact of data cleaning and regularization on linkage analyses. Extensive data regularization protocols were developed and applied to both genotypic and phenotypic data. Genome-wide nonparametric linkage (NPL) statistics were computed for each study, over various stages of data processing. To assess the impact of data processing on aggregate results, Genome-Scan Meta-Analysis (GSMA) was performed. Examples of increased, reduced and shifted linkage peaks were found when comparing linkage results based on original HGI data to results using post-processed data within the same set of pedigrees. Interestingly, reducing the number of affected individuals tended to increase rather than decrease linkage peaks. But most importantly, while the effects of data regularization within individual data sets were small, GSMA applied to the data in aggregate yielded a substantially different picture after data regularization. These results have implications for analyses based on other types of data (e.g., case-control GWAS or sequencing data) as well as data obtained from other repositories.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 14%
Psychology 3 11%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
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 15 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,360,179
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,312
of 194,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,890
of 306,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,155
of 5,535 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 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 194,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 306,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,535 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.