CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 440Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are Twins and Singletons Comparable? A Study of Disease-related and Lifestyle Characteristics in Adult Women

Open access
Andrew, Toby, Hart, Deborah J., Snieder, Harold, de Lange, Marlies, Spector, Tim D., MacGregor, Alex J.·2001·Twin Research
DOI 10.1375/1369052012803
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The classic twin study is sometimes described as "the perfect natural experiment" for the investigation of the aetiology of complex disease, but assumptions of the twin design need to be empirically tested if their results are to be considered unbiased and representative of singleton populations. In this study comparisons of disease and prevalence of lifestyle characteristics have been made between twin participants in the St Thomas' Hospital UK adult twin registry, the largest twin volunteer register in the UK for the study of diseases of ageing, and a parallel population-based study of singleton women. The only differences found were for weight, where monozygotic (MZ) twins were lighter and had a smaller variance than dizygotic (DZ) twins and singletons. For the other variables studied, volunteer twins were not found to differ from age-matched singleton women in distribution or prevalence of: bone mineral density, osteoarthritis, blood pressure, hypertensive drug use, height, history of hysterectomy and ovariectomy, menopausal status and current alcohol and overall tobacco consumption. We conclude that the results of twin studies can be generalised to singleton populations for these measures and disease outcomes.

Overview

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 · 10.1375/1369052012803

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Burnett, S., Hart, D., Cooper, C., & Spector, T. (1994). A radi- ographic atlas of osteoarthritis. London: Springer-Verlag.
  2. Doyle, P., Leon, D., Maconochie, N., & de Stavola, B. (1999). Patterns of growth retardation differ in twins and singletons. British Medical Journal, 319, 517.
  3. Hart, D., Spector, T., Brown, P., Wilson, P., Doyle, D., & Silman, A. (1993). Clinical signs of early osteoarthritis: Reproducibility and relation to x-ray changes in 541 women in the general popula- tion. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 52, 93-96.
  4. Hodge, S. E. (1998). Ascertainment. In P. Armitage & T. Colton (Eds.), Encyclopedia of biostatistics (pp. 197-201). New York: Wiley.
  5. Holm, N. (1983). The use of twin studies to investigate causes of diseases with complex etiology, with a focus on cancer. Unpublishhed doc- toral dissertation, Odense University, Odense:.
  6. Kaprio, J., Verkasalo, P. K., & Koskenvuo, M. (2000). Sample selec- tion and outcome definition in twin studies: Experiences from the Finnish twin cohort study. In T. Spector, H. Snieder, & A. MacGregor (Eds.), Advances in twin and sib-pair analysis. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd.
  7. Kyvik, K. O. (2000). Generalisability and assumptions of twin studies. In T. Spector, H. Snieder, & A. MacGregor (Eds.), Advances in twin and sib-pair analysis. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd.
  8. MacGillivray, I., Campbell, D., Thompson, B., & et al. (Eds.; 1988). Twinning and twins. London: John Wiley.
  9. MacGregor, A. J., Snieder, H., Schork, N. J., & Spector, T. D. (2000). Twins. Novel uses to study complex traits and genetic diseases. Trends in Genetics, 16(3), 131-134.
  10. McMichael, A. (1976). Standardised mortality ratios and the 'healthy worker effect': Scratching beneath the surface. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(8), 797-805.
  11. Neale, M. (1995). Mx: Statistical modelling (Version 3rd edition). Richmond: Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Virginia.
  12. Office For National Statistics (ONS). (1991). Census: Mid-year popu- lation figures (adjusted for under enumeration; Vol. 30 June 1991). Office For National Statistics, Department of Health Database.
  13. Strachan, D. P. (2000). Influence of design on the outcome of twin studies. In T. Spector, H. Snieder, & A. MacGregor (Eds.), Advances in twin and sib-pair analysis. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 440

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Andrew, T., Hart, D. J., Snieder, H., de Lange, M., Spector, T. D., & MacGregor, A. J.
Affiliations
St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Andrew, Toby
ORCID
Venue
Twin Research
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2001-12-01
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
464-477
ISSN
  • 1369-0523 (ISSN-L)
  • 0000-0000
DOI
10.1375/1369052012803
OpenAlex
W2015612792
Cited by
440
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 38
FWCI
12.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Twin Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Chronic Disease Research Foundation
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Versus Arthritis (17489)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, lifestyle characteristics, disease prevalence, body weight, bone mineral density, osteoarthritis, blood pressure, menopause, hysterectomy, ovariectomy, alcohol consumption, smoking, twin registry
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Body Height, Female, Humans, Life Style, Menopause, Middle Aged, Morbidity, Osteoarthritis, Smoking, Social Class, Twins, Bone Density

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