↓ Skip to main content

Formalising recall by genotype as an efficient approach to detailed phenotyping and causal inference

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, February 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
48 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Unspecified 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 28%
Unspecified 10 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Design 2 5%
Other 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#461,079
of 11,657,610 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#6,431
of 17,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,941
of 267,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#464
of 1,072 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,657,610 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 267,368 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,072 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 56% of its contemporaries.