Search results

The full list of authors is at the end of the paper:

Just had a quick look at if any of the top 25 significant genes from Table S3 were significant in a few other genetic studies. I only have the genes saved from a few of the genetic studies that have been done, so I hope to check others too at some point, but I found that DCC and CDK5RAP1 were...

I think that's a good idea.

Also done. Let's get that whole genome study, SequenceME, or whatever else they've got cooking.

Yes, these specific parts: Edit: Seems to pretty much be all over the brain though.

Such a historic moment for ME/CFS and related conditions. Thank you to everyone on the DecodeME team, the patients, and everyone else who helped make this happen.

If you look at the table I posted a few posts up, it shows the frequency of the effect allele under A1FREQ. So for RABGAP1L, it says 0.325, which means 32.5% of the combined cases and controls had the effect/risk allele.

Even though it was tough to get significance with the lower numbers in the male cohort, it's really nice to see that the effect direction is identical for all 8 of the main loci in females and male. And two of the three that were genome-wide significant in females were p<.017 (Bonferroni...

Just posted on the DecodeME blog: "Initial DecodeME DNA Results" Copying the first section, more at the link: Main findings from our analysis Your genes contribute to your chances of developing ME/CFS. People with an ME/CFS diagnosis have significant genetic differences in their DNA...

Yeah, I see those same switch ups and mislabels.

So are you suggesting they made an error in the statistics? Or that the results aren't strong enough to base conclusions on? For the former, I don't see any reason to think what they got was not possible. For the latter, their conclusions have very little to do with Table 10's findings.

Based on a questionnaire as opposed to objective dollar amounts:

Financial burden of patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome Jennifer Scheel-Barteit, Caroline Floto, Henrike Höpfner, Thomas Kühlein, Bettina Hohberger, Maria Sebastião [Line breaks added] Aim The present study aimed to analyze the financial burden of German patients with Post‐acute...

If by noise you mean confounders like people with ME/CFS might be more likely to take contraceptives, that's still totally possible, no disagreement here. That's not the kind of noise this kind of statistical test is testing for though. The p-value is small enough to say that the reason the...

More press about this paper: Blog by one of the authors: "A do-or-die moment for the scientific enterprise" Retraction Watch: "Fighting coordinated publication fraud is like ‘emptying an overflowing bathtub with a spoon,’ study coauthor says" Edit: Note from the blog:

One test is testing if either group's correlation is different from zero. The other is testing if the groups' correlations are different from each other. The first not being significant doesn't mean there's definitely no correlation between these metabolites, just that with the data we have...

Do you mean that it doesn't appear to be statistically valid? Each group on its own might have a correlation that is too small to be statistically significant when you're testing if the correlation is different from zero correlation. But the distance between the correlation in ME/CFS and the...

Is it possible that a contraceptive changing one hormone level might lead to downregulation or upregulation of these core enzymes so that many more hormones are affected than just progesterone?

The point isn't that meds would break down those channels. It's that if half the people take a med that increases the output metabolite of a pathway and half don't, with the input metabolite not being directly affected, the correlation between the input and output becomes much harder to detect...

I'm having trouble imagining how a specific factor would eliminate 52 (virtually all) different correlations between different metabolites. The simplest explanation to me seems like increased variability preventing significance. And I can imagine there might be increased variability in hormones...