ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2026
Genomic insights into natural selection in recent human history.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
For over a century, scientists have debated the extent to which genetic and phenotypic variation among present-day humans is the result of natural selection - in which heritable traits influence survival or reproduction - versus neutral processes such as genetic drift or population history. The initial sequencing of the human genome and subsequent population resequencing studies enabled genome-scale searches for signatures of selection in present-day genomes. This first generation of genome-wide selection scans identified many targets but left open questions about the timing and nature of selection, making it challenging to identify environmental and biological drivers. Recent methodological advances based on reconstructing ancestral recombination graphs have increased the potential power and resolution of selection scans based on present-day genomes, while the availability of new data on ancient DNA has facilitated the direct reconstruction of genetic change through time. However, there is little consensus on how to use these data to detect and interpret signatures of selection, while avoiding confounders. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about the impact of selection on human genomic diversity and highlight conceptual advances in our understanding of human evolution over the past 10,000 years.
Identifiers
42728425What 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.