4 ms·
> > So I guess you won't be able to select for tall sons, at best you might be able to pick the larger of two embryos with slightly higher than random chance.
by DuskStar 7y ago
> > So I guess you won't be able to select for tall sons, at best you might be able to pick the larger of two embryos with slightly higher than random chance.
> It'd actually be 65% with the current height PGSes (upperbounded at perhaps 71% as WGS can recover the full heritability: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/588020v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/588020v1 ).
Wouldn't knowing 65% of the variance let you pick the best of two more than 75% of the time? (my intuition would be 50 + 65/2 %, but I'm probably wrong there)
- gwern 7y agoNo. I don't know of any simple formula relating variance with the order statistics of selecting the max, such as in the worst-case scenario of picking from only 2. (In any case, the variance I used is 40%, then halved for relatedness.) I do have an open StatsExchange question on this: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/427292/probability-of-selecting-maximum-in-bivariate-correlated-order-statistics https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/427292/probability... But to calculate the probability, I just Monte Carlo it.
- DuskStar 7y agoThanks for the correction, and the simulation code!