Why BGPT?
logo

Meta-Analyses on Exact Results

Extract and pool exact reported results across studies, each value linked to its source paper.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.

Press Enter ↡ to extract results



    Explore by Goal












     Quick Analysis Plan


    From the supplied evidence, only one high-quality MMR–ASD study is available: a UK matched case-control study (1,294 PDD cases, 4,469 controls) reporting an adjusted OR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.68–1.09), i.e., no association . A formal pooled effect estimate and heterogeneity (IΒ²) analysis cannot be computed from these records alone; the thimerosal study supplied is not an MMR exposure study and its litigation-linked authorship and VAERS-based design limit its evidentiary weight .


     Long Analysis Plan


    What the supplied evidence supports

    The only study in the provided records directly comparing MMR exposure to ASD/PDD outcomes is the Lancet case-control study: 1,294 PDD cases and 4,469 matched controls from the UK General Practice Research Database, with vaccination recorded in 78.1% of cases vs 82.1% of controls before diagnosis (adjusted OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68–1.09) . Because the CI includes 1.0 and the point estimate is below 1, this study shows no increased risk.

    A formal meta-analysis is not computable from the supplied records: a pooled estimate, IΒ² heterogeneity, and subgroup analyses require at least two MMR-specific effect estimates. The remaining records concern thimerosal exposure (not MMR), MMR immunogenicity with rotavirus co-administration , or unrelated ASD phenotyping. The thimerosal study's positive signal cannot be transferred to MMR: different exposure, passive-reporting design, and authors involved in vaccine litigation .

    What would complete the requested meta-analysis: at minimum, the Danish cohort (Madsen 2002), Taylor 2014 systematic review, and Hviid 2019 cohort β€” none supplied here β€” to compute a pooled random-effects OR with subgroup breakdowns by sex, calendar period, and vaccination timing. What would change the current inference: replicated, pre-registered cohort evidence of a consistent dose–response rise in ASD incidence after MMR. Confidence in the no-association conclusion from the single supplied study: moderate-to-strong given its size and design, with acknowledged limitations in vaccination-record completeness and unadjusted confounders.



    Feedback:    

    Updated: October 10, 2026

     Top Data Sources ExportMCP


     Science Art


    Provide a meta-analysis of all high-quality cohort and case-control studies comparing MMR and ASD outcomes (effect estimate, heterogeneity, subgroup analyses). Previous Question: Rising autism diagnosis and high stable vaccine coverage are temporally overlapping but mechanistically distinct phenomena; large-scale epidemiology repeatedly rules out vaccines as a population-level cause while historical congenital infections (eg rubella) remain a preventable source of neurodevelopmental harm. Science Art

     Science Movie


    Make a narrated HD Science movie for this answer ($32 per minute)




     Discussion


    Stay current without chasing every paper.

    Know what changed, what holds up, and what remains uncertain. Every Friday. No ads.


    My BGPT






     Trending