SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between genes and reflexive attention.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defined as the semi-autonomous orientation to either a moving or rapidly appearing stimulus, reflexive attention (RA) is a crucial process for humans. While there are multiple outcomes used to assess RA, their relationships have not been tested. Disruptions in RA often relate to neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorder, so RA might be moderated by age. Additionally, the current academic consensus is that multiple genes influence RA, but this has not been assessed in a meta-analysis. A better understanding of RA using previously collected data will allow us to improve the design of future research studies. Methods: In accordance with PRISMA, we conducted a broad search for potentially relevant articles pertaining to genes associated with RA. Selected studies included those (1) published in English, (2) involving human participants, and (3) referencing specific genetic markers in association with a measure of RA. For subgroup comparisons, we analyzed 14 studies assessing children and 23 assessing adults. We also compared 18 dopamine-related to 19 non-dopamine related studies. Results: The main analysis produced a non-significant overall effect size; however, our most interesting finding was that results varied by age group. We explore this as well as difference by outcome type and the relation of the gene studied to dopamine. Conclusion: Our findings vary by age group. However, due to heterogeneity we recommend more studies to answer some questions about a broader range of neurotransmitters, to include younger age groups, and to clarify difference by outcome type. We discuss issues of relevance to researchers to guide future meta-analyses. Systematic review registration: Prospero: International prospective register of systematic reviews. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42018090220.
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.