ReviewShock (Augusta, Ga.)2020
Quality Control Measures and Validation in Gene Association Studies: Lessons for Acute Illness.
Review in Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Acute illness is a complex constellation of responses involving dysregulated inflammatory and immune responses, which are ultimately associated with multiple organ dysfunction. Gene association studies have associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with clinical and pharmacological outcomes in a variety of disease states, including acute illness. With approximately 4 to 5 million SNPs in the human genome and recent studies suggesting that a large portion of SNP studies are not reproducible, we suggest that the ultimate clinical utility of SNPs in acute illness depends on validation and quality control measures. To investigate this issue, in December 2018 and January 2019 we searched the literature for peer-reviewed studies reporting data on associations between SNPs and clinical outcomes and between SNPs and pharmaceuticals (i.e., pharmacogenomics) published between January 2011 to February 2019. We review key methodologies and results from a variety of clinical and pharmacological gene association studies, including trauma and sepsis studies, as illustrative examples on current SNP association studies. In this review article, we have found three key points which strengthen the potential accuracy of SNP association studies in acute illness and other diseases: providing evidence of following a protocol quality control method such as the one in Nature Protocols or the OncoArray QC Guidelines; enrolling enough patients to have large cohort groups; and validating the SNPs using an independent technique such as a second study using the same SNPs with new patient cohorts. Our survey suggests the need to standardize validation methods and SNP quality control measures in medicine in general, and specifically in the context of complex disease states such as acute illness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.