ReviewGenetic epidemiology2019
Spinning convincing stories for both true and false association signals.
Review in Genetic epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of study design, contamination, and data characteristics on results and interpretation of microbiome studies.mSystems · 2025Article
- Article
- Species-wide genomics of kākāpō provides tools to accelerate recovery.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Influenza Vaccination Is Not Associated with Increased Number of Visits for Shoulder Pain.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Using the structure of genome data in the design of deep neural networks for predicting amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from genotype.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- Spinning convincing stories for both true and false association signals.Genetic epidemiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When interpreting genome-wide association peaks, it is common to annotate each peak by searching for genes with plausible relationships to the trait. However, "all that glitters is not gold"-one might interpret apparent patterns in the data as plausible even when the peak is a false positive. Accordingly, we sought to see how human annotators interpreted association results containing a mixture of peaks from both the original trait and a genetically uncorrelated "synthetic" trait. Two of us prepared a mix of original and synthetic peaks of three significance categories from five different scans along with relevant literature search results and then we all annotated these regions. Three annotators also scored the strength of evidence connecting each peak to the scanned trait and the likelihood of further studying that region. While annotators found original peaks to have stronger evidence (p
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.