Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29844615›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2018

From genome-wide associations to candidate causal variants by statistical fine-mapping.

Daniel J Schaid, Wenan Chen, Nicholas B Larson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 566 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
566citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

566 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Proteogenomics in human populations.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

506 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

3 authors.

Daniel J SchaidDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. schaid@mayo.edu.
Wenan ChenDepartment of Computational Biology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Nicholas B LarsonDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

Quantitative Methods for Genetic EpidemiologyR01GM065450 · NIGMS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI SCHAID, DANIEL J. · 2002 to 2020
$5.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM065450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advancing from statistical associations of complex traits with genetic markers to understanding the functional genetic variants that influence traits is often a complex process. Fine-mapping can select and prioritize genetic variants for further study, yet the multitude of analytical strategies and study designs makes it challenging to choose an optimal approach. We review the strengths and weaknesses of different fine-mapping approaches, emphasizing the main factors that affect performance. Topics include interpreting results from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the role of linkage disequilibrium, statistical fine-mapping approaches, trans-ethnic studies, genomic annotation and data integration, and other analysis and design issues.

Indexed as

AllelesGenome-Wide Association StudyLinkage DisequilibriumPolymorphism, Single NucleotideChromosome MappingHumans

Identifiers

PMID29844615
PMCPMC6050137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.