Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20454541›Full record

ArticleStatistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics2009

Replication in genome-wide association studies.

Peter Kraft, Eleftheria Zeggini, John P A Ioannidis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 162 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 18 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

162 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Article
  20. ESR1 as a candidate gene for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis pathogenesis in North-West Indian population.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peter KraftDepartments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Eleftheria Zeggini
John P A Ioannidis

Funding

TUFTS CLINICAL AND TRANSLATION SCIENCE INSTITUTE (UL1): BPCAUL1RR025752 · NCRR · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2008 to 2011
$17.6M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025752Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Replication helps ensure that a genotype-phenotype association observed in a genome-wide association (GWA) study represents a credible association and is not a chance finding or an artifact due to uncontrolled biases. We discuss prerequisites for exact replication; issues of heterogeneity; advantages and disadvantages of different methods of data synthesis across multiple studies; frequentist vs. Bayesian inferences for replication; and challenges that arise from multi-team collaborations. While consistent replication can greatly improve the credibility of a genotype-phenotype association, it may not eliminate spurious associations due to biases shared by many studies. Conversely, lack of replication in well-powered follow-up studies usually invalidates the initially proposed association, although occasionally it may point to differences in linkage disequilibrium or effect modifiers across studies.

Identifiers

PMID20454541
PMCPMC2865141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.