Impact of Phenotype Definition on Genome-Wide Association Signals: Empirical Evaluation in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection is a research paper published in American Journal of Epidemiology (2011). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.470. It has been cited 22 times.
Discussion on improving the power of genome-wide association studies to identify candidate variants and genes is generally centered on issues of maximizing sample size; less attention is given to the role of phenotype definition and ascertainment. The authors used genome-wide data from patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) to assess whether differences in type of population (622 seroconverters vs. 636 seroprevalent subjects) or the number of measurements available for defining the phenotype resulted in differences in the effect sizes of associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms and the phenotype, HIV-1 viral load at set point. The effect estimate for the top 100 single nucleotide polymorphisms was 0.092 (95% confidence interval: 0.074, 0.110) log(10) viral load (log(10) copies of HIV-1 per mL of blood) greater in seroconverters than in seroprevalent subjects. The difference was even larger when the authors focused on chromosome 6 variants (0.153 log(10) viral load) or on variants that achieved genome-wide significance (0.232 log(10) viral load). The estimates of the genetic effects tended to be slightly larger when more viral load measurements were available, particularly among seroconverters and for variants that achieved genome-wide significance. Differences in phenotype definition and ascertainment may affect the estimated magnitude of genetic effects and should be considered in optimizing power for discovering new associations.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.470
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.