Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32537487›Full record

ArticleScience advances2020

Patrick C M Wong, Xin Kang, Kay H Y Wong, Hon-Cheong So, Kwong Wai Choy, Xiujuan Geng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. An inverse correlation between structural linguistic and human genetic diversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The sounds of prehistoric speech.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patrick C M WongDepartment of Linguistics and Modern Languages, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-6105-5027
Xin KangDepartment of Linguistics and Modern Languages, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-1126-5771
Kay H Y WongDepartment of Linguistics and Modern Languages, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Hon-Cheong SoBrain and Mind Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-7102-833X
Kwong Wai ChoyBrain and Mind Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Xiujuan GengDepartment of Linguistics and Modern Languages, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How language has evolved into more than 7000 varieties today remains a question that puzzles linguists, anthropologists, and evolutionary scientists. The genetic-biasing hypothesis of language evolution postulates that genes and language features coevolve, such that a population that is genetically predisposed to perceiving a particular linguistic feature would tend to adopt that feature in their language. Statistical studies that correlated a large number of genetic variants and linguistic features not only generated this hypothesis but also specifically pinpointed a linkage between

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionLanguageLinguisticsNerve Tissue ProteinsNerve Tissue Proteins

Identifiers

PMID32537487
PMCPMC7253162
OpenAlexW3030218427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.