Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23251931›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2012

Author’s response: Humans, fruit flies, and automatons.

Evan Charney

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Evan CharneyDepartment of Public Policy and Political Science, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC 90239, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

My response is divided into four sections: (1) is devoted to a potpourri of commentaries that are essentially in agreement with the substance of my target article (with one exception); in (2) I address, in response to one of the commentaries, several issues relating to the use of candidate gene association studies in behavior genetics (in particular those proposing a specific G × E interaction); in (3) I provide a detailed response to several defenses of the twin study methodology; and in (4) I conclude with several reflections on that methodology and the conception of human nature it has fostered.

Indexed as

Genetics, BehavioralGenomicsFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID23251931

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.