↓ Skip to main content

Phenotype-driven strategies for exome prioritization of human Mendelian disease genes

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, July 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Phenotype-driven strategies for exome prioritization of human Mendelian disease genes
Published in
Genome Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13073-015-0199-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Damian Smedley, Peter N. Robinson

Abstract

Whole exome sequencing has altered the way in which rare diseases are diagnosed and disease genes identified. Hundreds of novel disease-associated genes have been characterized by whole exome sequencing in the past five years, yet the identification of disease-causing mutations is often challenging because of the large number of rare variants that are being revealed. Gene prioritization aims to rank the most probable candidate genes towards the top of a list of potentially pathogenic variants. A promising new approach involves the computational comparison of the phenotypic abnormalities of the individual being investigated with those previously associated with human diseases or genetically modified model organisms. In this review, we compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of current phenotype-driven computational algorithms, including Phevor, Phen-Gen, eXtasy and two algorithms developed by our groups called PhenIX and Exomiser. Computational phenotype analysis can substantially improve the performance of exome analysis pipelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Italy 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 219 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 21%
Student > Master 36 16%
Other 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 27 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 66 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 14%
Computer Science 18 8%
Neuroscience 8 3%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 35 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 31 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,583,584
of 24,224,854 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#589
of 1,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,211
of 267,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,224,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. 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 267,579 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 63% of its contemporaries.