↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Analytic Methods for Longitudinal GWAS and a Case-Study Evaluating Chemotherapy Course Length in Pediatric AML. A Report from the Children's Oncology Group

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Comparing Analytic Methods for Longitudinal GWAS and a Case-Study Evaluating Chemotherapy Course Length in Pediatric AML. A Report from the Children's Oncology Group
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2016.00139
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marijana Vujkovic, Richard Aplenc, Todd A. Alonzo, Alan S. Gamis, Yimei Li

Abstract

Regression analysis is commonly used in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to test genotype-phenotype associations but restricts the phenotype to a single observation for each individual. There is an increasing need for analytic methods for longitudinally collected phenotype data. Several methods have been proposed to perform longitudinal GWAS for family-based studies but few methods are described for unrelated populations. We compared the performance of three statistical approaches for longitudinal GWAS in unrelated subjectes: (1) principal component-based generalized estimating equations (PC-GEE); (2) principal component-based linear mixed effects model (PC-LMEM); (3) kinship coefficient matrix-based linear mixed effects model (KIN-LMEM), in a study of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on the duration of 4 courses of chemotherapy in 624 unrelated children with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) genotyped on the Illumina 2.5 M OmniQuad from the COG studies AAML0531 and AAML1031. In this study we observed an exaggerated type I error with PC-GEE in SNPs with minor allele frequencies < 0.05, wheras KIN-LMEM produces more than expected type II errors. PC-MEM showed balanced type I and type II errors for the observed vs. expected P-values in comparison to competing approaches. In general, a strong concordance was observed between the P-values with the different approaches, in particular among P < 0.01 where the between-method AUCs exceed 99%. PC-LMEM accounts for genetic relatedness and correlations among repeated phenotype measures, shows minimal genome-wide inflation of type I errors, and yields high power. We therefore recommend PC-LMEM as a robust analytic approach for GWAS of longitudinal data in unrelated populations.

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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Other 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Engineering 2 8%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,827,359
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#3,326
of 12,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,727
of 369,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#19
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 369,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 59% of its contemporaries.