ArticleBMC public health2018
The surprising implications of familial association in disease risk.
Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Familial risks of acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.Blood · 2018Trial
- Risk of mortality in family members of men seeking fertility assessment.Fertility and sterility · 2025Article
- The built-in selection bias of hazard ratios formalized using structural causal models.Lifetime data analysis · 2024Article
- Heterogeneity in coronary heart disease risk.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Expression of miR-451a in Prostate Cancer and Its Effect on Prognosis.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Analysis of 153 115 patients with hematological malignancies refines the spectrum of familial risk.Blood · 2019Article
- Inequality in genetic cancer risk suggests bad genes rather than bad luck.Nature communications · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA wide range of diseases show some degree of clustering in families; family history is therefore an important aspect for clinicians when making risk predictions. Familial aggregation is often quantified in terms of a familial relative risk (FRR), and although at first glance this measure may seem simple and intuitive as an average risk prediction, its implications are not straightforward.
methodsWe use two statistical models for the distribution of disease risk in a population: a dichotomous risk model that gives an intuitive understanding of the implication of a given FRR, and a continuous risk model that facilitates a more detailed computation of the inequalities in disease risk. Published estimates of FRRs are used to produce Lorenz curves and Gini indices that quantifies the inequalities in risk for a range of diseases.
resultsWe demonstrate that even a moderate familial association in disease risk implies a very large difference in risk between individuals in the population. We give examples of diseases for which this is likely to be true, and we further demonstrate the relationship between the point estimates of FRRs and the distribution of risk in the population.
conclusionsThe variation in risk for several severe diseases may be larger than the variation in income in many countries. The implications of familial risk estimates should be recognized by epidemiologists and clinicians.
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.