4 ms·
I'd urge you to be cautious when interpreting those data. The effect size of most of these SNPs is tiny, often explaining (at most) only very small amounts of t
by chrisamiller 9y ago
I'd urge you to be cautious when interpreting those data. The effect size of most of these SNPs is tiny, often explaining (at most) only very small amounts of the variability observed between groups. This is especially true for things like personality traits, which have a huge environmental component.
So, if finding out the empathy thing is fun, then by all means, keep poking around in your data! Promethease is probably the best of the bunch, and I've run my data through it. Just be mindful of the evidence level and effect size!
- lxchase 9y agoYes, this is a good note for anyone interested in doing this. Other things to keep in mind, the paper source, while may be peer reviewed, most likely was not reproduced (a problem in the industry in general), so would be prudent to filter on # of publications supporting the SNP correlation. Also, the report will tell you relative risk, not absolute (e.g. 1.5x increased risk of getting breast cancer). In other words, your absolute risk may be 0.00001, so it can easily be 8x and it won't really matter. The most actionable items I've found for me personally were drug interactions due to genetics. Thanks for bringing up the caveats.
- tudorw 9y agol'll second that, drug drug interactions and genetics is an under learned topic in the UK, I know that because my GP borrowed my book, 'Clinical Manual of Drug Interaction Principles for Medical Practice' :)