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 |
Formalising recall by genotype as an efficient approach to detailed phenotyping and causal inference
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41467-018-03109-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura J. Corbin, Vanessa Y. Tan, David A. Hughes, Kaitlin H. Wade, Dirk S. Paul, Katherine E. Tansey, Frances Butcher, Frank Dudbridge, Joanna M. Howson, Momodou W. Jallow, Catherine John, Nathalie Kingston, Cecilia M. Lindgren, Michael O’Donavan, Stephen O’Rahilly, Michael J. Owen, Colin N. A. Palmer, Ewan R. Pearson, Robert A. Scott, David A. van Heel, John Whittaker, Tim Frayling, Martin D. Tobin, Louise V. Wain, George Davey Smith, David M. Evans, Fredrik Karpe, Mark I. McCarthy, John Danesh, Paul W. Franks, Nicholas J. Timpson |
| Abstract |
Detailed phenotyping is required to deepen our understanding of the biological mechanisms behind genetic associations. In addition, the impact of potentially modifiable risk factors on disease requires analytical frameworks that allow causal inference. Here, we discuss the characteristics of Recall-by-Genotype (RbG) as a study design aimed at addressing both these needs. We describe two broad scenarios for the application of RbG: studies using single variants and those using multiple variants. We consider the efficacy and practicality of the RbG approach, provide a catalogue of UK-based resources for such studies and present an online RbG study planner. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 Kingdom | 15 | 44% |
| United States | 4 | 12% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 56% |
| Scientists | 9 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 119 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 18% |
| Researcher | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 28 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 10% |
| Design | 4 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 37 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 24 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,891,752
of 25,200,621 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#24,977
of 55,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,901
of 336,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#584
of 1,175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,200,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 55,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 336,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,175 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 50% of its contemporaries.