ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2020
Critical Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Studies: Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating multi-omics data for next-generation cancer research and precision medicine.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- The Impact of microRNA SNPs on Breast Cancer: Potential Biomarkers for Disease Detection.Molecular biotechnology · 2025Review
- Omics-Based Investigations of Breast Cancer.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Considering hormone-sensitive cancers as a single disease in the UK biobank reveals shared aetiology.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Functional Genomics in Health and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are useful in assessing and analyzing either differences or variations in DNA sequences across the human genome to detect genetic risk factors of diseases prevalent within a target population under study. The ultimate goal of GWAS is to predict either disease risk or disease progression by identifying genetic risk factors. These risk factors will define the biological basis of disease susceptibility for the purposes of developing innovative, preventative, and therapeutic strategies. As single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are often used in GWAS, their relevance for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) will be assessed in this review. Furthermore, as there are different levels and patterns of linkage disequilibrium (LD) present within different human subpopulations, a plausible strategy to evaluate known SNPs associated with incidence of breast cancer in ethnically different patient cohorts will be presented and discussed. Additionally, a description of GWAS for TNBC will be presented, involving various identified SNPs correlated with miRNA sites to determine their efficacies on either prognosis or progression of TNBC in patients. Although GWAS have identified multiple common breast cancer susceptibility variants that individually would result in minor risks, it is their combined effects that would likely result in major risks. Thus, one approach to quantify synergistic effects of such common variants is to utilize polygenic risk scores. Therefore, studies utilizing predictive risk scores (PRSs) based on known breast cancer susceptibility SNPs will be evaluated. Such PRSs are potentially useful in improving stratification for screening, particularly when combining family history, other risk factors, and risk prediction models. In conclusion, although interpretation of the results from GWAS remains a challenge, the use of SNPs associated with TNBC may elucidate and better contextualize these studies.
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.