ArticleDialogues in clinical neuroscience2001
Toward a modern search for schizophrenia genes.
Article in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2001. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic epidemiology has provided consistent evidence that schizophrenia has a genetic component It is now clear that this genetic component is complex and polygenic, with several genes interacting in epistasis. Although molecular studies have failed to identify any DNA variant that clearly contributes to vulnerability to schizophrenia, several regions have been implicated by linkage studies. To overcome the difficulties in the search for schizophrenia genes, it is necessary (i) to use methods of analysis that are appropriate for complex multifactorial disorders; (ii) to gather large enough clinical samples; and (iii) in the absence of genetic validity of the diagnostic classification currently used, to apply new strategies in order to better define the affected phenotypes. For this purpose, we describe here two strategies: (i) the candidate symptom approach, which concerns affected subjects and uses proband characteristics as the affected phenotype, such as age at onset, severity, and negative/positive symptoms; and (ii) the endophenotypic approach, which concerns unaffected relatives and has already provided positive findings with phenotypes, such as P50 inhibitory gating or eye-movement dysfunctions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22033484PMC3181646What 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.