↓ Skip to main content

A scalable, knowledge-based analysis framework for genetic association studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2013
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 (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
A scalable, knowledge-based analysis framework for genetic association studies
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-312
Pubmed ID
Authors

James W Baurley, David V Conti

Abstract

Testing for marginal associations between numerous genetic variants and disease may miss complex relationships among variables (e.g., gene-gene interactions). Bayesian approaches can model multiple variables together and offer advantages over conventional model building strategies, including using existing biological evidence as modeling priors and acknowledging that many models may fit the data well. With many candidate variables, Bayesian approaches to variable selection rely on algorithms to approximate the posterior distribution of models, such as Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Unfortunately, MCMC is difficult to parallelize and requires many iterations to adequately sample the posterior. We introduce a scalable algorithm called PEAK that improves the efficiency of MCMC by dividing a large set of variables into related groups using a rooted graph that resembles a mountain peak. Our algorithm takes advantage of parallel computing and existing biological databases when available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 53 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Master 9 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 39%
Computer Science 7 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#7,878,286
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,082
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,492
of 214,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#46
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 214,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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 58% of its contemporaries.