↓ Skip to main content

Gaussian graphical models for phenotypes using pedigree data and exploratory analysis using networks with genetic and nongenetic factors based on Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Gaussian graphical models for phenotypes using pedigree data and exploratory analysis using networks with genetic and nongenetic factors based on Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 data
Published in
BMC Proceedings, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1753-6561-8-s1-s99
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rajesh Talluri, Sanjay Shete

Abstract

Graphical models are increasingly used in genetic analyses to take into account the complex relationships between genetic and nongenetic factors influencing the phenotypes. We propose a model for determining the network structure of quantitative traits while accounting for the correlated nature of the family-based samples using the kinship coefficient. The Gaussian graphical model of age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, blood pressure medication use, and smoking status was derived for three time points using real data. We also explored binary sparse graphical models of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), covariates, and quantitative traits for exploratory analysis of the data. We validated the applicability of this method by producing a network graph using 20 causal variants, 21 noncausal variants, and 6 binary and quantitative phenotypes using the simulated data. To improve the model's ability to identify associations between the causal variants and the phenotypes, we intend to conduct follow-up studies investigating how to use the relationships between SNPs and between SNPs and phenotypes when analyzing genome wide association data with multiple phenotypes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 33%
Computer Science 2 22%
Mathematics 1 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
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 05 April 2012.
All research outputs
#7,531,132
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#92
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,001
of 228,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 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 375 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 228,824 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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.