↓ Skip to main content

Quality control and conduct of genome-wide association meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Protocols, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
563 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Quality control and conduct of genome-wide association meta-analyses
Published in
Nature Protocols, April 2014
DOI 10.1038/nprot.2014.071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas W Winkler, Felix R Day, Damien C Croteau-Chonka, Andrew R Wood, Adam E Locke, Reedik Mägi, Teresa Ferreira, Tove Fall, Mariaelisa Graff, Anne E Justice, Jian'an Luan, Stefan Gustafsson, Joshua C Randall, Sailaja Vedantam, Tsegaselassie Workalemahu, Tuomas O Kilpeläinen, André Scherag, Tonu Esko, Zoltán Kutalik, Iris M Heid, Ruth J F Loos

Abstract

Rigorous organization and quality control (QC) are necessary to facilitate successful genome-wide association meta-analyses (GWAMAs) of statistics aggregated across multiple genome-wide association studies. This protocol provides guidelines for (i) organizational aspects of GWAMAs, and for (ii) QC at the study file level, the meta-level across studies and the meta-analysis output level. Real-world examples highlight issues experienced and solutions developed by the GIANT Consortium that has conducted meta-analyses including data from 125 studies comprising more than 330,000 individuals. We provide a general protocol for conducting GWAMAs and carrying out QC to minimize errors and to guarantee maximum use of the data. We also include details for the use of a powerful and flexible software package called EasyQC. Precise timings will be greatly influenced by consortium size. For consortia of comparable size to the GIANT Consortium, this protocol takes a minimum of about 10 months to complete.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 563 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Chile 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 14 2%
Unknown 525 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 166 29%
Researcher 163 29%
Student > Master 50 9%
Student > Bachelor 41 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 30 5%
Other 113 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 203 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 110 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 93 17%
Unspecified 49 9%
Neuroscience 25 4%
Other 83 15%

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 06 April 2017.
All research outputs
#10,348,363
of 13,559,870 outputs
Outputs from Nature Protocols
#1,838
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,239
of 188,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Protocols
#43
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,559,870 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 188,756 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.