Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35761388›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2022

A theory-based practical solution to correct for sex-differential participation bias.

Hanbin Lee, Buhm Han

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Hanbin LeeDepartment of Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. hanbin973@snu.ac.kr.
Buhm HanDepartment of Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. buhm.han@snu.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0002-2266-5164

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most genomic cohorts are retrospective where the exposures and outcomes are predetermined prior to sample collection. Therefore, a spurious association between an exposure and an outcome can arise if both variables affect study participation. Such concerns were raised in previous studies questioning the representativeness of the UK Biobank. Recently, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on biological sex found many autosomal hits and non-negligible autosomal heritability which the authors attribute to selection bias. In this study, we propose a simple and a practical method that can overcome sex-driven selection bias based on theoretical analysis and simulations.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideBiasGenomicsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35761388
PMCPMC9238114

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.