Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19002139›Full record

ReviewMolecular psychiatry2009

A framework for interpreting genome-wide association studies of psychiatric disorders.

Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Steering Committee

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular psychiatry, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

101 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. A rare variant inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. New insights from the last decade of research in psychiatric genetics: discoveries, challenges and clinical implications.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Steering Committee

Funding

Medical Research Council G9810900
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yielded a plethora of new findings in the past 3 years. By early 2009, GWAS on 47 samples of subjects with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and schizophrenia will be completed. Taken together, these GWAS constitute the largest biological experiment ever conducted in psychiatry (59 000 independent cases and controls, 7700 family trios and >40 billion genotypes). We know that GWAS can work, and the question now is whether it will work for psychiatric disorders. In this review, we describe these studies, the Psychiatric GWAS Consortium for meta-analyses of these data, and provide a logical framework for interpretation of some of the conceivable outcomes.

Indexed as

GenomeGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMental DisordersMeta-Analysis as Topic

Identifiers

PMID19002139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.