Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24744256›Full record

ArticleHuman genetics2014

Conditions for the validity of SNP-based heritability estimation.

James J Lee, Carson C Chow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Uncovering the Genetic Architectures of Quantitative Traits.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2016
    Review
  17. Article
  18. The Fourth Law of Behavior Genetics.Current directions in psychological science · 2015
    Article
  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

2 authors.

James J LeeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA, leex2293@umn.edu.
Carson C Chow

Funding

Genome Wide Association Coordinating CenterU01HG004446 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WEIR, BRUCE S. · 2007 to 2011
$6.6M
Analysis of genome wide dataZIADK075068 · NIDDK · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES · PI CHOW, CARSON · 2012 to 2020
$2.0M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA DK075068NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG004446
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The heritability of a trait (h(2)) is the proportion of its population variance caused by genetic differences, and estimates of this parameter are important for interpreting the results of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). In recent years, researchers have adopted a novel method for estimating a lower bound on heritability directly from GWAS data that uses realized genetic similarities between nominally unrelated individuals. The quantity estimated by this method is purported to be the contribution to heritability that could in principle be recovered from association studies employing the given panel of SNPs (h(2)(SNP)). Thus far, the validity of this approach has mostly been tested empirically. Here, we provide a mathematical explication and show that the method should remain a robust means of obtaining h(2)(SNP)) under circumstances wider than those under which it has so far been derived.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenome-Wide Association StudyComputer SimulationGenome, HumanGenotypeHumansModels, GeneticMultifactorial InheritancePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24744256
PMCPMC4159725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.