Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20680024›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2010

Measuring selection in contemporary human populations.

Stephen C Stearns, Sean G Byars, Diddahally R Govindaraju, Douglas Ewbank

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. The evolutionary puzzle of cognition: challenges and insights from individual-based studies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Factors affecting attitudes toward migrants-An evolutionary approach.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Evolutionary Strategies for Body Size.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020
    Review
  20. Antagonistic Pleiotropy in Human Disease.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020
    Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stephen C StearnsDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8102, USA. stephen.stearns@yale.edu
Sean G Byars
Diddahally R Govindaraju
Douglas Ewbank

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Are humans currently evolving? This question can be answered using data on lifetime reproductive success, multiple traits and genetic variation and covariation in those traits. Such data are available in existing long-term, multigeneration studies - both clinical and epidemiological - but they have not yet been widely used to address contemporary human evolution. Here we review methods to predict evolutionary change and attempts to measure selection and inheritance in humans. We also assemble examples of long-term studies in which additional measurements of evolution could be made. The evidence strongly suggests that we are evolving and that our nature is dynamic, not static.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionSelection, GeneticCultureGenetic FitnessGenetics, MedicalHumansPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID20680024

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.