Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25854887›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2015

The interface between genetics and psychology: lessons from developmental dyslexia.

D V M Bishop

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Is atypical rhythm a risk factor for developmental speech and language disorders?Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Statistical learning as a window into developmental disabilities.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2018
    Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

D V M BishopDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK dorothy.bishop@psy.ox.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 082498Wellcome Trust 082498/Z/07/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developmental dyslexia runs in families, and twin studies have confirmed that there is a substantial genetic contribution to poor reading. The way in which discoveries in molecular genetics are reported can be misleading, encouraging us to think that there are specific genes that might be used to screen for disorder. However, dyslexia is not a classic Mendelian disorder that is caused by a mutation in a single gene. Rather, like many other common disorders, it appears to involve combined effects of many genes and environmental factors, each of which has a small influence, possibly supplemented by rare variants that have larger effects but apply to only a minority of cases. Furthermore, to see clearer relationships between genotype and phenotype, we may need to move beyond the clinical category of dyslexia to look at underlying cognitive deficits that may be implicated in other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Indexed as

Cognition DisordersDyslexiaGenotypeHumansPhenotypedyslexiageneticsneurodevelopmental disordersspecific language impairmenttwins

Identifiers

PMID25854887
PMCPMC4426619
OpenAlexW2132668868

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.