Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25709812›Full record

ArticleBoneKEy reports2015

Big data challenges in bone research: genome-wide association studies and next-generation sequencing.

Nerea Alonso, Gavin Lucas, Pirro Hysi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BoneKEy reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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.

Nerea AlonsoRheumatic Diseases Unit, MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK.
Gavin LucasClear Genetics SL , Barcelona, Spain.
Pirro HysiDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, Saint Thomas Hospital , London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been developed as a practical method to identify genetic loci associated with disease by scanning multiple markers across the genome. Significant advances in the genetics of complex diseases have been made owing to advances in genotyping technologies, the progress of projects such as HapMap and 1000G and the emergence of genetics as a collaborative discipline. Because of its great potential to be used in parallel by multiple collaborators, it is important to adhere to strict protocols assuring data quality and analyses. Quality control analyses must be applied to each sample and each single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). The software package PLINK is capable of performing the whole range of necessary quality control tests. Genotype imputation has also been developed to substantially increase the power of GWAS methodology. Imputation permits the investigation of associations at genetic markers that are not directly genotyped. Results of individual GWAS reports can be combined through meta-analysis. Finally, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has gained popularity in recent years through its capacity to analyse a much greater number of markers across the genome. Although NGS platforms are capable of examining a higher number of SNPs compared with GWA studies, the results obtained by NGS require careful interpretation, as their biological correlation is incompletely understood. In this article, we will discuss the basic features of such protocols.

Identifiers

PMID25709812
PMCPMC4325556

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.