↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Disease Risk in Genome-wide Association Studies Using Family History

Overview of attention for article published in Epidemiology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Assessing Disease Risk in Genome-wide Association Studies Using Family History
Published in
Epidemiology, July 2012
DOI 10.1097/ede.0b013e31825583a0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arpita Ghosh, Patricia Hartge, Mark P. Purdue, Stephen J. Chanock, Laufey Amundadottir, Zhaoming Wang, Nicolas Wentzensen, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Sholom Wacholder

Abstract

We show how to use reports of cancer in family members to discover additional genetic associations or confirm previous findings in genome-wide association (GWA) studies conducted in case-control, cohort, or cross-sectional studies. Our novel family history-based approach allows economical association studies for multiple cancers, without genotyping of relatives (as required in family studies), follow-up of participants (as required in cohort studies), or oversampling of specific cancer cases (as required in case-control studies). We empirically evaluate the performance of the proposed family history-based approach in studying associations with prostate and ovarian cancers, using data from GWA studies previously conducted within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The family history-based method may be particularly useful for investigating genetic susceptibility to rare diseases for which accruing cases may be very difficult, by using disease information from nongenotyped relatives of participants in multiple case-control and cohort studies designed primarily for other purposes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 4 21%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 21%
Computer Science 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%

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 08 October 2012.
All research outputs
#10,195,810
of 16,545,042 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology
#2,357
of 2,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,967
of 129,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,545,042 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 129,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.