Cited by 188Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyEthics in Clinical ResearchGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

UK Biobank, big data, and the consequences of non-representativeness

Open access
Keyes, Katherine M, Westreich, Daniel·2019·The Lancet

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)33067-8

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Selection bias can result in AI models trained on a sample that differs considerably from the general population, thus hurting these models at inference time.

    “Importantly, selection bias can result in AI models trained on a sample that differs considerably from the general population 161 , thus hurting these models at inference time 162”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [162]

    The main text says the volunteer-based UK Biobank sample is not representative of the UK population and explains how sample selection can limit the applicability of results to a target population. It does not discuss AI models or model training. The separate claim about performance at inference time is attached to citation 162, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keyes, K. M., & Westreich, D.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Mayor (CL)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Keyes, Katherine M
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
393
Issue
10178
Pages
1297
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2928514898
Cited by
187
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 7
FWCI
15.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01AA021511)
  • National Instititues of Health (OD/NICHD DP2-HD-08–4070)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
UK Biobank, sample representativeness, big data, causal effect estimation, generalizability of study results
MeSH terms
Big Data, Environmental Exposure, United Kingdom, Health Resources, Humans, Volunteers, Biological Specimen Banks, Health Information Systems

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