Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24859358›Full record

ReviewDiabetologia2014

Genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetes and obesity: from genome-wide association studies to rare variants and beyond.

Niels Grarup, Camilla H Sandholt, Torben Hansen, Oluf Pedersen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetologia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

100 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Childhood obesity from the genes to the epigenome.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Niels GrarupThe Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DIKU Building, Universitetsparken 1, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark, niels.grarup@sund.ku.dk.
Camilla H Sandholt
Torben Hansen
Oluf Pedersen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the past 7 years, genome-wide association studies have shed light on the contribution of common genomic variants to the genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes, obesity and related intermediate phenotypes. The discoveries have firmly established more than 175 genomic loci associated with these phenotypes. Despite the tight correlation between type 2 diabetes and obesity, these conditions do not appear to share a common genetic background, since they have few genetic risk loci in common. The recent genetic discoveries do however highlight specific details of the interplay between the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance and obesity. The focus is currently shifting towards investigations of data from targeted array-based genotyping and exome and genome sequencing to study the individual and combined effect of low-frequency and rare variants in metabolic disease. Here we review recent progress as regards the concepts, methodologies and derived outcomes of studies of the genetics of type 2 diabetes and obesity, and discuss avenues to be investigated in the future within this research field.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic VariationDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Genetic LociGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansInsulin ResistanceObesity

Identifiers

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.