Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27120814›Full record

ReviewScience progress2016

Concepts and relevance of genome-wide association studies.

Andreas Scherer, G Bryce Christensen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science progress, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
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.

Andreas Scherer
G Bryce Christensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association study (GWAS) technology has been a primary method for identifying the genes responsible for diseases and other traits for the past 10 years. Over 2,000 human GWAS reports now appear in the scientific journals. The technology is continuing to improve, and has recently become accessible to researchers studying a wide variety of animals, plants and model organisms. Here, we present an overview of GWAS concepts: the underlying biology, the origins of the method, and the primary components of a GWAS experiment.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyAnimalsHumansPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID27120814
PMCPMC10365339

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.