Absolutely this. These tools can create plausible sounding results from anything.
They’re great when used responsibly, for anything which is verifiable, as they can be trained and trained to ensure they behave. That’s why they often make good information retrieval, summarising, code...
There’s more information in the Data Analysis Plan which may help
https://www.decodeme.org.uk/our-gwas-data-analysis-plan/
Check the section of the PDF on Ancestry
https://www.decodeme.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-15_DecodeME_Data_Analysis_Plan_v2_final.pdf
I’d skip the AI stuff for speculative answers like this. Probably safe to say we don’t know yet and read the great blog post
https://www.decodeme.org.uk/x-marks-the-spot/
Or listen to it if that’s easier for you
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZqX2W5Z4yR8YkHhWUzzghs07AaMamsl6mW7
This seems pretty fair and well edited. The way they have pieced this together is quite entertaining with some selective quoting used to skip the more questionable claims by certain people…
And increased ZNFX1 equates to decreased inflammation or inflammatory signals? So is this something ‘anti-inflammatory’ popping up again?
NLRP3 is apparently expressed predominantly in macrophages. And more ZNFX1 would suppress/inhibit activation here?
I think I see what you mean. Learning about these genes there seems to be a lot about what is let into or out of cells, cleanup and communication between them (particularly neurons).
So in a complex and busy environment having your doormen and your maintenance crews behave just a little ‘off’...
There seems to be lots of things around cell transport and vesicles and synapses cropping up. So could this be not so much about pathogen entry but just subtle differences in neurotransmitter behaviour? One of the many little probabilities shifting slightly which when combined under certain...
Indeed. It is annoying that such rigour is being ignored with empty arguments and in some ways it would be nice to have them corrected in reporting. But tbh for now I don’t think it’s the message people are hearing and I don’t think Chris and co should worry too much about it in their media...
I’d add that the project very clearly did not disclose its criteria for exclusion. This caused a problem with reducing numbers for the GWAS but also with parts of the ME/CFS community because people were not being asked for saliva samples and they did not know why. This is key for the argument...
I’m also extra cautious of any implications of things I’ve come across, as like you @V.R.T. I didn’t do biology past GCSE, made bad decisions with things like smoking and am learning enough to spot patterns and over-enthusiastically link them to hypotheses!
ME/CFS
M/C
Mornington Crescent…...
Definitely. It’s something we’re aware of but the message that most of the public are hearing seems clear: major development in disease I may have vaguely heard about or know someone who has it but haven’t really understood much about.
Good point. It’s very different from the flexibility and humility of changing when information changes and admission of being wrong, which I think we would all welcome and which would serve everybody in this situation better. The desire to be ‘right’ and protect one’s ego is very common, being...
It’s entirely about that isn’t it, what they’ve emotionally invested in this idea. Because if you’ve got that much of a reputation, the positions they have, isn’t it wiser to just admit what is in front of you and move on? Why bang this drum, it makes no sense. It also shows a real inflexibility...
Jonathan is obviously better placed and more qualified to respond.
But IMHO it could be but it may not. I doubt they’ll be anything quite as clear and simple, more lots of little things here and there which may slightly shift the balance in favour of whatever is going wrong to happen. Like a...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.