That's what predicts means in your field, but ask the average person and they will tell that it means that a score can tell who will develop a disease. Both are right, but not speaking the same language.
Literally, X predicts Y means there's some statistical association between them. There's nothing to be unhappy about there. Besides, lots of annotation analyses shows the SNPs are involved with relevant pathways. This is an obviously losing position to take.https://twitter.com/cecilejanssens/status/1056681826067079174 …
-
-
-
Reply to this is here http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034 …
-
Thanks. I recommend everyone to read this reply. It confirms that Kirkegaard is not a real scientist, but an alt right demagogue.
-
-
RationalWiki is really an impartial POV. Congratulations.
-
I didnt say it was.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The fact that these SNP’s with supposed pathways related to the trait are generally not replicated and the next study finds other SNP’s with different pathways, is the winning position, because you can never be wrong. In the omnigenic worldview, you can always find a pathway.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How do they know the SNPs are involved in pathways? They merely show some SNPs falling within some distance to relevant pathways. Lets take height for instance. How many of the SNPs have been shown to do anything within said pathway? Correlation not due to interaction?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Predict implies a higher degree of robustness than association
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.