ReviewEuropean journal of epidemiology2020
Contributions of the UK biobank high impact papers in the era of precision medicine.
Review in European journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dissecting the shared genetic landscape of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Optimizing metabolic health through deep-phenotyping-based personalized nutrition.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2026Review
- Ethical navigation of biobanking establishment in Ukraine: learning from the experience of developing countries.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Medical Imaging Data Strategies for Catalyzing AI Medical Device Innovation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- The Public Knowledge of Precision Medicine and Genomic Research: A Survey in the Aosta Valley.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Investigating Modifiable Factors Associated with Cognitive Decline: Insights from the UK Biobank.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Twenty-Five Years of Evolution and Hurdles in Electronic Health Records and Interoperability in Medical Research: Comprehensive Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Association between impaired lung function and risk of spondyloarthritis: a cross-sectional study in the UK Biobank.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025Article
- Impaired pulmonary function increases the risk of gout: evidence from a large cohort study in the UK Biobank.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Investigating Modifiable Risk Factors Across Dementia Subtypes: Insights from the UK Biobank.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Lessons and Applications of Omics Research in Diabetes Epidemiology.Current diabetes reports · 2024Review
- Positive association between research competitiveness of Chinese academic hospitals and the scale of their biobanks: A national survey.Clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Decoding the genetics of rare disease: an interview with Monkol Lek.Disease models & mechanisms · 2022Article
- Biobanks as a Treasury for Precision Medicine.Healthcare informatics research · 2021Article
- GenoPheno: cataloging large-scale phenotypic and next-generation sequencing data within human datasets.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Review
- Trends of High-Impact Studies in Pharmacology and Pharmacy: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Opportunities, challenges and expectations management for translating biobank research to precision medicine.European journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To review the highest impact studies published from the UK Biobank and assess their contributions to "precision medicine." We reviewed 140 of 689 studies published between 2008 and May 2019 from the UK Biobank deemed to be high impact by citations, alternative metric data, or publication in a high impact journal. We classified studies according to whether they (1) were largely methods papers, (2) largely replicated prior findings or associations, (3) generated novel findings or associations, (4) developed risk prediction models that did not yield clinically significant improvements in risk estimation over prior models or (5) developed models that produced significant improvements in individualized risk assessment, targeted screening, or targeted treatment. This final category represents "precision medicine." We classified 15 articles as category 1, 33 as category 2, 85 as category 3, six as category 4, and one as category 5. In this assessment of the first 7 years of the UK Biobank and first 4 years of genetic data availability, the majority of high impact UK Biobank studies either replicated known associations or generated novel associations without clinically relevant improvements in risk prediction, screening, or treatment. This information may be useful for designers of other cohort studies in terms of input to design and follow-up to facilitate precision medicine research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31993883What 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.