Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23303064›Full record

Trial reportNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology2013

Candidate gene studies of a promising intermediate phenotype: failure to replicate.

Amy B Hart, Harriet de Wit, Abraham A Palmer

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Toward Precision Medicine in ADHD.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Amy B HartDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Harriet de Wit
Abraham A Palmer

Funding

Determinants of Drug Preference in Humans--Administrative SupplementR01DA002812 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI DE WIT, HARRIET · 1985 to 2024
$10.6M
NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOLGY TRG FOR DRUG ABUSE RESEARCHT32DA007255 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI VEZINA, PAUL R · 1991 to 2012
$5.9M
Systems Genetic Analysis of Methamphetamine's Motivational Effects in a Mouse AILR01DA021336 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI PALMER, ABRAHAM A · 2006 to 2015
$4.0M
Novel Methods to Map Stimulant QTLs in Advanced Intercross LinesR21DA024845 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI PALMER, ABRAHAM A · 2008 to 2009
$422k
NIDA NIH HHS DA007255NIDA NIH HHS DA021336NIDA NIH HHS DA024845NIDA NIH HHS DA02812NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA002812NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA021336NIDA NIH HHS R21 DA024845NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many candidate gene studies use 'intermediate phenotypes' instead of disease diagnoses. It has been proposed that intermediate phenotypes have simpler genetic architectures such that individual alleles account for a larger percentage of trait variance. This implies that smaller samples can be used to identify genetic associations. Pharmacogenomic drug challenge studies may be an especially promising class of intermediate phenotype. We previously conducted a series of 12 candidate gene analyses of acute subjective and physiological responses to amphetamine in 99-162 healthy human volunteers (ADORA2A, SLC6A3, BDNF, SLC6A4, CSNK1E, SLC6A2, DRD2, FAAH, COMT, OPRM1). Here, we report our attempt to replicate these findings in over 200 additional participants ascertained using identical methodology. We were unable to replicate any of our previous findings. These results raise critical issues related to non-replication of candidate gene studies, such as power, sample size, multiple testing within and between studies, publication bias and the expectation that true allelic effect sizes are similar to those reported in genome-wide association studies. Many of these factors may have contributed to our failure to replicate our previous findings. Our results should instill caution in those considering similarly designed studies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultClinical Trials as TopicDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansMaleMinisatellite RepeatsMood DisordersPhenotypeProbabilityRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23303064
PMCPMC3671998

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.