Question · asked by 1 review
ADGRL2 gene (aggregate gene-based signal, MAGMA) vs Genome-wide gene background (FDR threshold): Dental caries (self-reported history)
- Population
- Japanese adults (present-study direct-to-consumer genetic testing cohort); self-reported disease cases vs controls
- Intervention
- ADGRL2 gene (aggregate gene-based signal, MAGMA)
- Comparison
- Genome-wide gene background (FDR threshold)
- Outcome
- Dental caries (self-reported history)
Gene-based analysis found ADGRL2 significantly associated with dental caries (FDR q<0.05); ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
ADGRL2 gene (aggregate gene-based signal, MAGMA) vs Genome-wide gene background (FDR threshold) Dental caries (self-reported history) · Japanese adults (present-study direct-to-consumer genetic testing cohort); self-reported disease cases vs controls · Lifelong (germline genotype), Population-based genetic association study (Japanese direct-to-consumer genetic testing cohort), MAGMA gene-based test (present study) Gene-based analysis found ADGRL2 significantly associated with dental caries (FDR q<0.05); ungraded. Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies two novel loci associated with dental caries. (2024) All outcomes | Gene-based association analysis (MAGMA): ADGRL2 was the only gene associated with dental caries at false-discovery-rate q<0.05 (no effect size reported). | 1 study · 45525 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies two novel loci associated with dental caries. 2024 All outcomes | Not applicable (primary GWAS with meta-analysis of one previously published GWAS; no systematic literature search) | 1 | Not applicable |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.