Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24480612›Full record

ArticleEvolution, medicine, and public health2014

Interbirth intervals: Intrafamilial, intragenomic and intrasomatic conflict.

David Haig

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution, medicine, and public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Sexual selection modulates genetic conflicts and patterns of genomic imprinting.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. What do men want? Re-examining whether men benefit from higher fertility than is optimal for women.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Fetal microchimerism and maternal health: a review and evolutionary analysis of cooperation and conflict beyond the womb.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2015
    Review
  16. Microchimerism in recurrent miscarriage.Cellular & molecular immunology · 2014
    Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

David HaigDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Harvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesInterbirth intervals (IBIs) mediate a trade-off between child number and child survival. Life history theory predicts that the evolutionarily optimal IBI differs for different individuals whose fitness is affected by how closely a mother spaces her children. The objective of the article is to clarify these conflicts and explore their implications for public health. METHODOLOGY: Simple models of inclusive fitness and kin conflict address the evolution of human birth-spacing.

resultsGenes of infants generally favor longer intervals than genes of mothers, and infant genes of paternal origin generally favor longer IBIs than genes of maternal origin. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The colonization of maternal bodies by offspring cells (fetal microchimerism) raises the possibility that cells of older offspring could extend IBIs by interfering with the implantation of subsequent embryos.

Indexed as

genomic imprintinginterbirth intervalmicrochimerismparent–offspring conflictsecondary infertility

Identifiers

PMID24480612
PMCPMC3917425
OpenAlexW2157638896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.