ReviewDer Nervenarzt2017
[Genetics of bipolar disorder].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multivariate analysis of genome-wide data to identify potential pleiotropic genes for five major psychiatric disorders using MetaCCA.Journal of affective disorders · 2019Pooled it
- Cognitive Impairment and Non-Invasive Neuromodulation Interventions in Bipolar Disorder: A Narrative Review of Current Status and Future Directions.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Review
- Women and ethnoracial minorities with poor cardiovascular health measures associated with a higher risk of developing mood disorder.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- A Novel CosegregatingGenes · 2020Article
- Gene expression pattern ofJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2019Article
- Novel functional variants at the GWAS-implicated loci might confer risk to major depressive disorder, bipolar affective disorder and schizophrenia.BMC neuroscience · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bipolar disorder (BD) has a multifactorial etiology. Its development is influenced by genetic as well as environmental factors. Large genome-wide association studies (GWAS), in which genetic risk allelic variants for the disorder could be replicated for the first time, marked the breakthrough in the identification of the responsible risk genes. In addition to these common genetic variants with moderate effects identified by GWAS, rare variants with a higher penetrance are expected to play a role in disease development. The results of recent studies suggest that copy number variants might contribute to BD development, although to a lesser extent than in other psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia or autism. Results from the initial next generation sequencing studies indicate an enrichment of rare variants in pathways and genes that were previously found to be associated with BD. In the field of pharmacogenetics, a risk gene that influences the individual variance in the response to lithium treatment was identified for the first time in a recent large international GWAS. Currently the reported risk alleles do not sufficiently explain the phenotypic variance to be used for individual prediction of disease risk, disease course or response to medication. Future genetic research will provide important insights into the biological basis of BD by the identification of additional genes associated with BD. This knowledge of genetics will help identify potential etiological subgroups as well as cross-diagnostic disease mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.