I think we are more or less in agreement on the limitations of the score. But not in agreement on what that means for access to the score. I would, in general, favor freedom of access information of any sort - not only genetic info - if it is desired.
But lifetime risk is usually pretty useless to the individual. If you look at the modelling curve in the white paper, the increased 5-year risk looks to be almost 0 and 20-year increase is about 0.5%
-
-
*for a healthy 20yo taking the test
-
Depends on how people define "healthy." In my experience - a self perception of health lines up nowhere near our quantitative standards of health. Anyway, I need to sign off for conference planning - but I enjoyed the back and forth. Despite disagreements - I enjoyed the banter
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
agree. and let's not forget .... 23andme didn't study lifetime risk ...
-
They did some modelling based on OR and some comparisons with another model built on real data, but that's certainly not the same as building their own model based on lifetime assessments or even specific diagnoses rather than self-report
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sure. For T2D I'd think lifetime risk is more relevant vs an acute disease like an adverse coronary event where short-term risk projections are more relevant. And of course it depends on your age as well. But yes - most people have more important risk factors to worry about.
-
This is where I struggle to see any benefit in these tests. Hundreds of dollars to be told something that you are already doing everything to prevent (this is the lowest risk group we're talking about, after all)...seems like a waste of money to me
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.