↓ Skip to main content

Dissecting trait heterogeneity: a comparison of three clustering methods applied to genotypic data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Dissecting trait heterogeneity: a comparison of three clustering methods applied to genotypic data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-7-204
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tricia A Thornton-Wells, Jason H Moore, Jonathan L Haines

Abstract

Trait heterogeneity, which exists when a trait has been defined with insufficient specificity such that it is actually two or more distinct traits, has been implicated as a confounding factor in traditional statistical genetics of complex human disease. In the absence of detailed phenotypic data collected consistently in combination with genetic data, unsupervised computational methodologies offer the potential for discovering underlying trait heterogeneity. The performance of three such methods--Bayesian Classification, Hypergraph-Based Clustering, and Fuzzy k-Modes Clustering--appropriate for categorical data were compared. Also tested was the ability of these methods to detect trait heterogeneity in the presence of locus heterogeneity and/or gene-gene interaction, which are two other complicating factors in discovering genetic models of complex human disease. To determine the efficacy of applying the Bayesian Classification method to real data, the reliability of its internal clustering metrics at finding good clusterings was evaluated using permutation testing.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 11%
United Kingdom 2 5%
Chile 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 30 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 29%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,431,072
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,561
of 7,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,377
of 67,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#39
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 67,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.