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 |
The advantages and limitations of trait analysis with GWAS: a review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Methods, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-4811-9-29 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arthur Korte, Ashley Farlow |
| Abstract |
Over the last 10 years, high-density SNP arrays and DNA re-sequencing have illuminated the majority of the genotypic space for a number of organisms, including humans, maize, rice and Arabidopsis. For any researcher willing to define and score a phenotype across many individuals, Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) present a powerful tool to reconnect this trait back to its underlying genetics. In this review we discuss the biological and statistical considerations that underpin a successful analysis or otherwise. The relevance of biological factors including effect size, sample size, genetic heterogeneity, genomic confounding, linkage disequilibrium and spurious association, and statistical tools to account for these are presented. GWAS can offer a valuable first insight into trait architecture or candidate loci for subsequent validation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 5 | 71% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,054 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | <1% |
| France | 9 | <1% |
| Brazil | 9 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | <1% |
| Germany | 6 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 27 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1971 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 526 | 26% |
| Researcher | 326 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 308 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 170 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 114 | 6% |
| Other | 229 | 11% |
| Unknown | 381 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1138 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 270 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 43 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 1% |
| Environmental Science | 25 | 1% |
| Other | 119 | 6% |
| Unknown | 430 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,544,587
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#56
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,893
of 213,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. 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 213,264 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.