↓ Skip to main content

Leveraging network analytics to infer patient syndrome and identify causal genes in rare disease cases

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Leveraging network analytics to infer patient syndrome and identify causal genes in rare disease cases
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3910-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Krämer, Sohela Shah, Robert Anthony Rebres, Susan Tang, Daniel Rene Richards

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing is widely used to identify disease-causing variants in patients with rare genetic disorders. Identifying those variants from whole-genome or exome data can be both scientifically challenging and time consuming. A significant amount of time is spent on variant annotation, and interpretation. Fully or partly automated solutions are therefore needed to streamline and scale this process. We describe Phenotype Driven Ranking (PDR), an algorithm integrated into Ingenuity Variant Analysis, that uses observed patient phenotypes to prioritize diseases and genes in order to expedite causal-variant discovery. Our method is based on a network of phenotype-disease-gene relationships derived from the QIAGEN Knowledge Base, which allows for efficient computational association of phenotypes to implicated diseases, and also enables scoring and ranking. We have demonstrated the utility and performance of PDR by applying it to a number of clinical rare-disease cases, where the true causal gene was known beforehand. It is also shown that PDR compares favorably to a representative alternative tool.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Unspecified 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 24%
Computer Science 4 12%
Unspecified 3 9%
Engineering 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,475,586
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,724
of 10,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,739
of 318,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#129
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,692 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 318,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.