↓ Skip to main content

Gene Set Enrichment Analyses: lessons learned from the heart failure phenotype

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, May 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Gene Set Enrichment Analyses: lessons learned from the heart failure phenotype
Published in
BioData Mining, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13040-017-0137-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vinicius Tragante, Johannes M. I. H. Gho, Janine F. Felix, Ramachandran S. Vasan, Nicholas L. Smith, Benjamin F. Voight, CHARGE Heart Failure Working Group, Colin Palmer, Pim van der Harst, Jason H. Moore, Folkert W. Asselbergs

Abstract

Genetic studies for complex diseases have predominantly discovered main effects at individual loci, but have not focused on genomic and environmental contexts important for a phenotype. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) aims to address this by identifying sets of genes or biological pathways contributing to a phenotype, through gene-gene interactions or other mechanisms, which are not the focus of conventional association methods. Approaches that utilize GSEA can now take input from array chips, either gene-centric or genome-wide, but are highly sensitive to study design, SNP selection and pruning strategies, SNP-to-gene mapping, and pathway definitions. Here, we present lessons learned from our experience with GSEA of heart failure, a particularly challenging phenotype due to its underlying heterogeneous etiology. This case study shows that proper data handling is essential to avoid false-positive results. Well-defined pipelines for quality control are needed to avoid reporting spurious results using GSEA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 25%
Computer Science 3 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
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 24 June 2020.
All research outputs
#3,068,995
of 24,998,746 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#60
of 320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,443
of 318,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,998,746 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 320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 318,853 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.