Evidence mapPaperPMID 35725481Full record

ReviewGenome biology2022

Open problems in human trait genetics.

Nadav Brandes, Omer Weissbrod, Michal Linial

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Genetic risk in telomere biology disorders: it adds up.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Gene-environment interactions in human health.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Asthma-Genomic Advances Toward Risk Prediction.Clinics in chest medicine · 2024
    Review
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

3 authors.

Nadav BrandesSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. nadav.brandes@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID 0000-0002-0510-2546
Omer WeissbrodDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Michal LinialDepartment of Biological Chemistry, The Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic studies of human traits have revolutionized our understanding of the variation between individuals, and yet, the genetics of most traits is still poorly understood. In this review, we highlight the major open problems that need to be solved, and by discussing these challenges provide a primer to the field. We cover general issues such as population structure, epistasis and gene-environment interactions, data-related issues such as ancestry diversity and rare genetic variants, and specific challenges related to heritability estimates, genetic association studies, and polygenic risk scores. We emphasize the interconnectedness of these problems and suggest promising avenues to address them.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyMultifactorial InheritanceGene-Environment InteractionHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideCausal variantsComplex human traitsDiversityEpistatisGene-environment interactionsGenome-wide association studiesGWASGxEGxGHeritabilityHuman phenotypesLinkage disequilibriumMissing heritabilityNon-additive genetic effectsPolygenic risk scoresPopulation structurePRSRare variantsRecessive effectsStatistical genetics

Identifiers

PMID35725481
PMCPMC9208223

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.