↓ Skip to main content

Decision tree analysis of genetic risk for clinically heterogeneous Alzheimer’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Decision tree analysis of genetic risk for clinically heterogeneous Alzheimer’s disease
Published in
BMC Neurology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12883-015-0304-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer S Yokoyama, Luke W Bonham, Renee L Sears, Eric Klein, Anna Karydas, Joel H Kramer, Bruce L Miller, Giovanni Coppola

Abstract

Heritability of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is estimated at 74% and genetic contributors have been widely sought. The ε4 allele of apolipoprotein E (APOE) remains the strongest common risk factor for AD, with numerous other common variants contributing only modest risk for disease. Variability in clinical presentation of AD, which is typically amnestic (AmnAD) but can less commonly involve visuospatial, language and/or dysexecutive syndromes (atypical or AtAD), further complicates genetic analyses. Taking a multi-locus approach may increase the ability to identify individuals at highest risk for any AD syndrome. In this study, we sought to develop and investigate the utility of a multi-variant genetic risk assessment on a cohort of phenotypically heterogeneous patients with sporadic AD clinical diagnoses. We genotyped 75 variants in our cohort and, using a two-staged study design, we developed a 17-marker AD risk score in a Discovery cohort (n = 59 cases, n = 133 controls) then assessed its utility in a second Validation cohort (n = 126 cases, n = 150 controls). We also performed a data-driven decision tree analysis to identify genetic and/or demographic criteria that are most useful for accurately differentiating all AD cases from controls. We confirmed APOE ε4 as a strong risk factor for AD. A 17-marker risk panel predicted AD significantly better than APOE genotype alone (P < 0.00001) in the Discovery cohort, but not in the Validation cohort. In decision tree analyses, we found that APOE best differentiated cases from controls only in AmnAD but not AtAD. In AtAD, HFE SNP rs1799945 was the strongest predictor of disease; variation in HFE has previously been implicated in AD risk in non-ε4 carriers. Our study suggests that APOE ε4 remains the best predictor of broad AD risk when compared to multiple other genetic factors with modest effects, that phenotypic heterogeneity in broad AD can complicate simple polygenic risk modeling, and supports the association between HFE and AD risk in individuals without APOE ε4.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Neuroscience 14 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 32 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,875,535
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#315
of 2,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,996
of 263,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#9
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 263,901 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 85% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.