The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The UK Biobank and selection bias
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In particular, selection bias is a common type of bias in large biobank studies, and has been reported as a problem, for example, in the UK Biobank 158”
From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [158]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Limitations of the Application of Fourfold Table Analysis to Hospital Data
Berkson, J. (1946) · Biometrics Bulletin · doi:10.2307/3002000 · Cited by 1,810
What makes UK Biobank special?
Collins, R. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60404-8 · Cited by 1,128
New Models for Large Prospective Studies: Is There a Better Way?
Manolio, T. A., Weis, B. K., Cowie, C. C., Hoover, R. N., Hudson, K., Kramer, B. S., Berg, C., Collins, R., Ewart, W., Gaziano, J. M., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwr453 · Cited by 129
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study
Miller, K. L., Alfaro-Almagro, F., Bangerter, N. K., Thomas, D. L., Yacoub, E., Xu, J., Bartsch, A. J., Jbabdi, S., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Andersson, J. L. R., et al. (2016) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4393 · Cited by 2,020
Acosta, J. N., Falcone, G. J., Rajpurkar, P., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01981-2 · Cited by 1,365
Batty, G. D., Gale, C. R., Kivimäki, M., Deary, I. J., & Bell, S. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m131 · Cited by 635
Participation bias in the UK Biobank distorts genetic associations and downstream analyses
Schoeler, T., Speed, D., Porcu, E., Pirastu, N., Pingault, J., & Kutalik, Z. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01579-9 · Cited by 437
Axes of a revolution: challenges and promises of big data in healthcare
Shilo, S., Rossman, H., & Segal, E. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0727-5 · Cited by 370
Metadata
- Authors
- Swanson, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Swanson, James M
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 380
- Issue
- 9837
- Pages
- 110
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2019221205
- Cited by
- 130
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
- Keywords
- UK Biobank, selection bias, sample selection bias, response rate, comorbidities, spurious association, model misspecification, generalizability
- MeSH terms
- Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, National Health Programs, Biological Specimen Banks, Databases as Topic, Translational Research, Biomedical
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
