Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26553329›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2015

Methods and models for unravelling human evolutionary history.

Joshua G Schraiber, Joshua M Akey

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.6field-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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A geometric relationship ofPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article

4 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joshua G SchraiberDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, 3720 15th Avenue NE, box 355065, Seattle, Washington 98195-5065, USA.
Joshua M AkeyDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, 3720 15th Avenue NE, box 355065, Seattle, Washington 98195-5065, USA.
University of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genomes of contemporary humans contain considerable information about the history of our species. Although the general contours of human evolutionary history have been defined with increasing resolution throughout the past several decades, the continuing deluge of massively large sequencing data sets presents new opportunities and challenges for understanding human evolutionary history. Here, we review the signatures that demographic history imparts on patterns of DNA sequence variation, statistical methods that have been developed to leverage information contained in genome-scale data sets and insights gleaned from these studies. We also discuss the importance of using exploratory analyses to assess data quality, the strengths and limitations of commonly used population genomics methods, and factors that confound population genomics inferences.

Indexed as

Databases, Nucleic AcidEvolution, MolecularGenetic VariationGenome, HumanGenetics, MedicalGenomicsHumansModels, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID26553329
OpenAlexW2135100919

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.