Topic: Genetics and APOE
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this protocol is to clearly describe the process for the scoping review we plan to conduct on the topic of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in common neurodegenerative diseases. We will present the review's objective, the strategy for evidence search, the data extraction and analysis procedure, and how the results will be presented. METHODS: The inclusion criteria for the planned scoping review will focus on evidence sources that involve PRS applied to neurogenerative diseases such as Multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in any phase of translational research, from early development to clinical implementation. This includes its use in risk prediction, early diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decision-making. The research questions were created based on the population, context, and concept framework. We will consider both peer-reviewed papers and grey literature published in English or German for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will search for information. CONCLUISON: The findings from the scoping review will be presented descriptively and summarized according to the research questions to illustrate the current status of translational research on PRS in common neurodegenerative diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sajko, M. Č., Suklan, J., Osmanović, D., & Peterlin, B. (2024). Translational Research on Polygenic Risk Scores in Common Neurodegenerative Diseases - A Scoping Review Protocol. Acta medica academica. https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.463
Vancouver
Sajko MČ, Suklan J, Osmanović D, Peterlin B. Translational Research on Polygenic Risk Scores in Common Neurodegenerative Diseases - A Scoping Review Protocol. Acta medica academica. 2024. doi:10.5644/ama2006-124.463. PMID: 39907297.
BibTeX
@article{sajko2024-39907297,
author = {Sajko, Mojca Čižek and Suklan, Jana and Osmanović, Džanan and Peterlin, Borut},
title = {{Translational Research on Polygenic Risk Scores in Common Neurodegenerative Diseases - A Scoping Review Protocol}},
journal = {Acta medica academica},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.5644/ama2006-124.463},
pmid = {39907297},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.463}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We will present the review's objective, the strategy for evidence search, the data extraction and analysis procedure, and how the results will be presented.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Acta medica academica) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39907297) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Genetics
Also tagged “genetics”
346 studies in the library carry the topic tag “genetics”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 346 tagged studies.