SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2014
A systematic review of cancer GWAS and candidate gene meta-analyses reveals limited overlap but similar effect sizes.
Synthesis in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Genetic association studies in critically ill patients: a systematic review.EBioMedicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Preeclampsia prediction and diagnosis: a comprehensive historical review from clinical insights to omics perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Germline determinants of aberrant signaling pathways in cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2024Article
- Simultaneous selection of multiple important single nucleotide polymorphisms in familial genome wide association studies data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The genetic basis of onset age in schizophrenia: evidence and models.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report.Journal of medical ethics · 2019Article
- Strategies for Network GWAS Evaluated Using Classroom Crowd Science.Cell systems · 2019Article
- Genome-wide association study identifies gastric cancer susceptibility loci at 12q24.11-12 and 20q11.21.Cancer science · 2018Article
- Article
- Redefining environmental exposure for disease etiology.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2018Article
- Mitochondrial ribosomes in cancer.Seminars in cancer biology · 2017Review
- Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as a protein level, non-genomic disease: Therapy with S2RM exosome released molecules.World journal of stem cells · 2017Review
- Common, germline genetic variations in the novel tumor suppressorOncotarget · 2017Article
- Gene editing and the health of future generations.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
- Pharmacogenetic Predictors of Treatment-Related Toxicity Among Children With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2017Review
- A knowledge-based framework for the discovery of cancer-predisposing variants using large-scale sequencing breast cancer data.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2017Article
- Exploring the Link between the Germline and Somatic Genome in Cancer.Cancer discovery · 2017Article
- Interaction Landscape of Inherited Polymorphisms with Somatic Events in Cancer.Cancer discovery · 2017Article
- A method to customize population-specific arrays for genome-wide association testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Candidate gene and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) represent two complementary approaches to uncovering genetic contributions to common diseases. We systematically reviewed the contributions of these approaches to our knowledge of genetic associations with cancer risk by analyzing the data in the Cancer Genome-wide Association and Meta Analyses database (Cancer GAMAdb). The database catalogs studies published since January 1, 2000, by study and cancer type. In all, we found that meta-analyses and pooled analyses of candidate genes reported 349 statistically significant associations and GWAS reported 269, for a total of 577 unique associations. Only 41 (7.1%) associations were reported in both candidate gene meta-analyses and GWAS, usually with similar effect sizes. When considering only noteworthy associations (defined as those with false-positive report probabilities≤0.2) and accounting for indirect overlap, we found 202 associations, with 27 of those appearing in both meta-analyses and GWAS. Our findings suggest that meta-analyses of well-conducted candidate gene studies may continue to add to our understanding of the genetic associations in the post-GWAS era.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.