ArticleBMC proceedings2007
Association mapping of susceptibility loci for rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in BMC proceedings, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed a case-control data set for chromosome 18q from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 15 to detect susceptibility loci for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A total number of 460 cases and 460 unaffected controls were genotyped on 2300 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) by the North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium. Using a multimarker approach for association mapping under the framework of the Malecot model and composite likelihood, we identified a region showing significant association with RA (p < 0.002) and the predicted disease locus was at a genomic location of 53,306 kb with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 53,295-53,331 kb. A common haplotype in this region was protective against RA (p = 0.002). In another region showing nominal significant association (51,585 kb, 95% CI: 51,541-51,628 kb, p = 0.037), a haplotype was also protective (p = 0.002). We further demonstrated that reducing SNP density decreased power and accuracy of association mapping. SNP selection based on equal linkage disequilibrium (LD) distance generally produced higher accuracy than that based on equal kilobase distance or tagging.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.