ReviewGenetic epidemiology2022
Clarifying the causes of consistent and inconsistent findings in genetics.
Review in Genetic epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safetyome and specialized panels for over 3,000 phenotypes: a systematic and translational approach using human genetics and pharmacology.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026Article
- Genetic predisposition to unwanted side effects under antidepressants and antipsychotics: a molecular-genetic study of 902 patients over 6 weeks.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- Integrating CRISPR functional genomics with admixture-aware psychotropic pharmacogenetics in Brazil.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Exploratory Analysis of HMGB1 Genetic Variants and Their Potential Association with Lung Cancer Susceptibility and Chemotherapy Response in a Chinese Population.Human heredity · 2026Article
- Unravelling prostate cancer risk and protective factors among urology patients in a Tanzanian population.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Epigenetics: the master switch of nasopharyngeal carcinoma invasion and metastasis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Multi-Genome-Wide association studies provide new insights into the genetic architecture of Varroa resistance in honeybees.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Genetic determinants of antidepressant and antipsychotic drug response.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2025Article
- Optimizing fluoropyrimidine therapy through dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase polymorphism testing.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Neighborhood matters: An exploration of neighborhood-level disadvantage and cancer preventive behaviors in Hispanic youth with unhealthy weight.Health & place · 2025Article
- Scoping review of enablers and challenges of implementing pharmacogenomics testing in the primary care settings.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Synergistic Effect between theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Charting Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia: Epidemiological Insights, Risk Factors and Prevention Pathways.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Interaction of social support and depressive symptoms on antiretroviral therapy adherence among people living with HIV in South Africa.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2024Article
- Clarifying the causes of consistent and inconsistent findings in genetics.Genetic epidemiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As research in genetics has advanced, some findings have been unexpected or shown to be inconsistent between studies or datasets. The reasons these inconsistencies arise are complex. Results from genetic studies can be affected by various factors including statistical power, linkage disequilibrium, quality control, confounding and selection bias, as well as real differences from interactions and effect modifiers, which may be informative about the mechanisms of traits and disease. Statistical artefacts can manifest as differences between results but they can also conceal underlying differences, which implies that their critical examination is important for understanding the underpinnings of traits. In this review, we examine these factors and outline how they can be identified and conceptualised with structural causal models. We explain the consequences they have on genetic estimates, such as genetic associations, polygenic scores, family- and genome-wide heritability, and describe methods to address them to aid in the estimation of true effects of genetic variation. Clarifying these factors can help researchers anticipate when results are likely to diverge and aid researchers' understanding of causal relationships between genes and complex traits.
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.