Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30982060›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology2019

How genome-wide association studies (GWAS) made traditional candidate gene studies obsolete.

Laramie E Duncan, Michael Ostacher, Jacob Ballon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Genetics of intracerebral hemorrhage.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. PROVGEN: A Privacy-Preserving Approach for Outcome Validation in Genomic Research.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

33 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.

Laramie E DuncanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Road / Rm 3320, Stanford, CA, USA. Laramied@Stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1131-661X
Michael OstacherDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Road / Rm 3320, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jacob BallonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Road / Rm 3320, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6157-4847

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyGenetic Association StudiesHumansMental DisordersMultifactorial InheritanceReproducibility of ResultsSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID30982060
PMCPMC6785091

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.