Thread here seems to imply the quality isn't great https://mobile.twitter.com/pastramimachine/status/1088917479840051200 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It doesn't address any of the issues mentioned in that thread you linked, just mentions one about genetic distance and then ignores it.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
A splainer’d be great
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Loads of things that could go wrong when testing a polygenic score using one population as the discovery & training sample on another population. Effect sizes, effect directions, interactions of SNPs can vary across populations;
2 replies 3 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @salonium @paul_hundred and
Saloni Retweeted Saloni
Some SNPs that cause variation in the test sample may not vary in the discovery sample and therefore wouldn't be included in the score; there might not be enough correction for unrelated pop genetic diffs e.g.https://twitter.com/salonium/status/1087950206304436226 …
Saloni added,
Saloni @saloniumReplying to @salonium @sentientistHere's an example I thought of: North & South Koreans vary in height because of nutritional access. Imagine the border collapses suddenly and there's more migration between the countries. Now there might be more S Koreans in N Korea. The average height of the population rises and1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @salonium @paul_hundred and
There are also other technical problems related to identifying snps, like LD decay, where the snps tagged by the analyses capture the causal variant less often bc of more recombination as populations differ more
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @salonium @paul_hundred and
And then there are problems when we ignore rare variants that affect the phenotype which are quite different across populations
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @salonium @paul_hundred and
In general, polygenic scores are useful for prediction rather than causal explanation, and especially when they're being tested on populations that weren't properly represented in the discovery sample
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @salonium @paul_hundred and
I'm going to guess unrepresentativeness & uncorrected population stratification is the main source of bias in this study. Why was the sample of Jews so small? How likely is it therefore that they're representative of Jews in general? Seems extremely unlikely, I think.
5 replies 1 retweet 18 likes
If you nothing about the literature on Jewish IQ, this statement is plausible.
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.