SynthesisPLoS biology2022
The characteristics of early-stage research into human genes are substantially different from subsequent research.
Synthesis in PLoS biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploratory meta-analysis of hypoxic transcriptomes using a precise transcript reference sequence set.Life science alliance · 2023Pooled it
- A digital archive reveals how a funding agency cooperated with academics to support the nascent field of genomics.Nature communications · 2026Article
- A longitudinal analysis of function annotations of the human proteome reveals consistently high biases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Article
- Meta-Research: understudied genes are lost in a leaky pipeline between genome-wide assays and reporting of results.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills.Nucleic acids research · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Throughout the last 2 decades, several scholars observed that present day research into human genes rarely turns toward genes that had not already been extensively investigated in the past. Guided by hypotheses derived from studies of science and innovation, we present here a literature-wide data-driven meta-analysis to identify the specific scientific and organizational contexts that coincided with early-stage research into human genes throughout the past half century. We demonstrate that early-stage research into human genes differs in team size, citation impact, funding mechanisms, and publication outlet, but that generalized insights derived from studies of science and innovation only partially apply to early-stage research into human genes. Further, we demonstrate that, presently, genome biology accounts for most of the initial early-stage research, while subsequent early-stage research can engage other life sciences fields. We therefore anticipate that the specificity of our findings will enable scientists and policymakers to better promote early-stage research into human genes and increase overall innovation within the life sciences.
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.