↓ Skip to main content

Identifying rare disease variants in the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 simulated data: a comparison of several statistical approaches

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Identifying rare disease variants in the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 simulated data: a comparison of several statistical approaches
Published in
BMC Proceedings, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1753-6561-5-s9-s17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruixue Fan, Chien-Hsun Huang, Shaw-Hwa Lo, Tian Zheng, Iuliana Ionita-Laza

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies have been successful at identifying common disease variants associated with complex diseases, but the common variants identified have small effect sizes and account for only a small fraction of the estimated heritability for common diseases. Theoretical and empirical studies suggest that rare variants, which are much less frequent in populations and are poorly captured by single-nucleotide polymorphism chips, could play a significant role in complex diseases. Several new statistical methods have been developed for the analysis of rare variants, for example, the combined multivariate and collapsing method, the weighted-sum method and a replication-based method. Here, we apply and compare these methods to the simulated data sets of Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 and thereby explore the contribution of rare variants to disease risk. In addition, we investigate the usefulness of extreme phenotypes in identifying rare risk variants when dealing with quantitative traits. Finally, we perform a pathway analysis and show the importance of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in explaining different phenotypes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Colombia 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 33%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 17%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Mathematics 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 25%
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 01 March 2012.
All research outputs
#20,155,513
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#318
of 374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,515
of 240,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#32
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 374 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 240,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.