3 ms·
It’s only diagnostically relevant in the context of imprecise population categories, lack of knowledge about disease origins, and the absence of genetic testing
by bugglebeetle 3y ago
It’s only diagnostically relevant in the context of imprecise population categories, lack of knowledge about disease origins, and the absence of genetic testing for conditions (i.e not in 2024). As others have pointed out in this thread, for example, the conflation of Black with prone to sickle cell disease is erroneous and more correctly determined by ancestry proximate to the region of the disease’s origin. Similarly, “white” in the US includes a wide swathe of genetics with various degrees of predisposition to melanoma (e.g. Northern vs Southern European).
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoIt's not diagnostically determinative, but it's diagnostically relevant. Not all black people have sickle cell disease, nor do all people of sub-Saharan African descent, nor do all people who have one parent known to a carrier of variant HBB genes etc. We're just talking about the degree of statistical likelihood that something from a patient history points to a diagnosis.
- Chris2048 3y ago> more correctly determined by ancestry proximate to the region of the disease’s origin Is the better metric just as easy to determine though? In other words, it may be a mere proxy to a "better" metric, but that means it's still correlative, and we can only abandon it if we have no better proxy.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoIn most modern health care settings, yes.
- Chris2048 3y agoYou're saying we can determine ancestry proximatry genetically?