Response to Sul and Eskin.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Limitations of principal components in quantitative genetic association models for human studies.eLife · 2023
   Article
2. Mapping the genomic architecture of adaptive traits with interspecific introgressive origin: a coalescent-based approach.BMC genomics · 2016
   Article
3. Improving the power of GWAS and avoiding confounding from population stratification with PC-Select.Genetics · 2014
   Article
4. Advantages and pitfalls in the application of mixed-model association methods.Nature genetics · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  New approaches to population stratification in genome-wide association studies.2010
• Comment on
  Mixed models can correct for population structure for genomic regions under selection.2013

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as