I find it shocking that you think it is acceptable to police access to information. That's what marketing guidelines are for. Lack of utility to a sub-group (even a large sub-group) is not justification to stop the flow of information completely.
But what you're saying is that in the best case scenario the test - for people who are low on every other risk, resemble 23andMe userbase, and score in the highest risk tier - will inform people of a risk increase of, what, about 0.05%? Roughly?
-
-
According to the white paper its >2X increase in lifetime risk in the top 5%. Risk increase depends on how you define "healthy." But the lifetime risk for BMI (18-25) is >10%. Seems like a fine definition for how most people perceive their health. 10% -> 20% (roughly)
-
I should note that the relative risk conveyed by these factors actually appears to be magnified in the healthy as well: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001647 … Which would lead to the surprising conclusion that you'd actually be underestimating risk in the healthy in this model.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also, from my reading this research the PRS was based on predictions garnered from (self-reported) diagnosed T2DM. The undiagnosed rate of T2DM ranges from 20-50% , so presumably it's made clear that the test might entirely miss genes associated with undiagnosed T2DM?
-
The GWAS results from self-reported data replicate the GWAS results from clinically evaluated individuals quite well actually. That is also in the white paper.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.