Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 26.
Published in final edited form as: Cell. 2013 Sep 26;155(1):10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.030. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.030

Figure 1. A systematic comparison of the eight clinical record datasets analyzed in this study.

Figure 1

(A) The total number of records in each dataset, broken down by gender. Panels (B) and (C) display the average prevalence for the complex and Mendelian diseases across the 8 datasets. Using the superset of the discovered associations (based on the original 7 datasets, see Extended Experimental Procedures for details), we compared the number of association signals that were detected in each dataset independently, depicted as the percentage of all associations discovered in the union of the 7 datasets (excluding MED): (D) Mendelian-complex and (E) Mendelian-Mendelian associations. (F) The rank correlation among relative risk estimates (lower diagonal) and disease prevalence (upper diagonal) for each significantly comorbid complex-Mendelian disease pair across the eight distinct datasets. (G) Scatter plots depicting the relative risk correlations for three pairs of datasets, indicated using the colored boxes in panel F. See also Tables S2 and S3.