ArticleNature genetics2011
Crowdsourcing human mutations.
Article in Nature genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Free the Data.Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first Human Variome microattribution review shows that data citation and publication credit can work as incentives for systematic curation of gene variant and phenotype data. Analysis of the formal assertions in both databases and journal articles argues for better separation of data structures from narrative so that they can better support one another to communicate meaning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21445067What 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.