↓ Skip to main content

Clinical validation of a genetic model to estimate the risk of developing choroidal neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genomics, July 2011
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
4 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Clinical validation of a genetic model to estimate the risk of developing choroidal neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Published in
Human Genomics, July 2011
DOI 10.1186/1479-7364-5-5-420
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory S Hageman, Karen Gehrs, Serguei Lejnine, Aruna T Bansal, Margaret M DeAngelis, Robyn H Guymer, Paul N Baird, Rando Allikmets, Cosmin Deciu, Paul Oeth, Lorah T Perlee

Abstract

Predictive tests for estimating the risk of developing late-stage neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are subject to unique challenges. AMD prevalence increases with age, clinical phenotypes are heterogeneous and control collections are prone to high false-negative rates, as many control subjects are likely to develop disease with advancing age. Risk prediction tests have been presented previously, using up to ten genetic markers and a range of self-reported non-genetic variables such as body mass index (BMI) and smoking history. In order to maximise the accuracy of prediction for mainstream genetic testing, we sought to derive a test comparable in performance to earlier testing models but based purely on genetic markers, which are static through life and not subject to misreporting. We report a multicentre assessment of a larger panel of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) than previously analysed, to improve further the classification performance of a predictive test to estimate the risk of developing choroidal neovascular (CNV) disease. We developed a predictive model based solely on genetic markers and avoided inclusion of self-reported variables (eg smoking history) or non-static factors (BMI, education status) that might otherwise introduce inaccuracies in calculating individual risk estimates. We describe the performance of a test panel comprising 13 SNPs genotyped across a consolidated collection of four patient cohorts obtained from academic centres deemed appropriate for pooling. We report on predictive effect sizes and their classification performance. By incorporating multiple cohorts of homogeneous ethnic origin, we obtained >80 per cent power to detect differences in genetic variants observed between cases and controls. We focused our study on CNV, a subtype of advanced AMD associated with a severe and potentially treatable form of the disease. Lastly, we followed a two-stage strategy involving both test model development and test model validation to present estimates of classification performance anticipated in the larger clinical setting. The model contained nine SNPs tagging variants in the regulators of complement activation (RCA) locus spanning the complement factor H (CFH), complement factor H-related 4 (CFHR4), complement factor H-related 5 (CFHR5) and coagulation factor XIII B subunit (F13B) genes; the four remaining SNPs targeted polymorphisms in the complement component 2 (C2), complement factor B (CFB), complement component 3 (C3) and age-related maculopathy susceptibility protein 2 (ARMS2) genes. The pooled sample size (1,132 CNV cases, 822 controls) allowed for both model development and model validation to confirm the accuracy of risk prediction. At the validation stage, our test model yielded 82 per cent sensitivity and 63 per cent specificity, comparable with metrics reported with earlier testing models that included environmental risk factors. Our test had an area under the curve of 0.80, reflecting a modest improvement compared with tests reported with fewer SNPs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Spain 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 58 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 13 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,798,066
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#97
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,656
of 127,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 127,136 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them