↓ Skip to main content

Efficient Replication of over 180 Genetic Associations with Self-Reported Medical Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
55 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Efficient Replication of over 180 Genetic Associations with Self-Reported Medical Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0023473
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joyce Y. Tung, Chuong B., David A. Hinds, Amy K. Kiefer, J. Michael Macpherson, Arnab B. Chowdry, Uta Francke, Brian T. Naughton, Joanna L. Mountain, Anne Wojcicki, Nicholas Eriksson

Abstract

While the cost and speed of generating genomic data have come down dramatically in recent years, the slow pace of collecting medical data for large cohorts continues to hamper genetic research. Here we evaluate a novel online framework for obtaining large amounts of medical information from a recontactable cohort by assessing our ability to replicate genetic associations using these data. Using web-based questionnaires, we gathered self-reported data on 50 medical phenotypes from a generally unselected cohort of over 20,000 genotyped individuals. Of a list of genetic associations curated by NHGRI, we successfully replicated about 75% of the associations that we expected to (based on the number of cases in our cohort and reported odds ratios, and excluding a set of associations with contradictory published evidence). Altogether we replicated over 180 previously reported associations, including many for type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, cholesterol levels, and multiple sclerosis. We found significant variation across categories of conditions in the percentage of expected associations that we were able to replicate, which may reflect systematic inflation of the effects in some initial reports, or differences across diseases in the likelihood of misdiagnosis or misreport. We also demonstrated that we could improve replication success by taking advantage of our recontactable cohort, offering more in-depth questions to refine self-reported diagnoses. Our data suggest that online collection of self-reported data from a recontactable cohort may be a viable method for both broad and deep phenotyping in large populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 5%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 125 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Professor 9 7%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 10%
Psychology 9 7%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 18 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 27 July 2022.
All research outputs
#657,547
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,875
of 219,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,399
of 128,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#95
of 2,392 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 128,440 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,392 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.