I should just stay away from these in depth articles. They're probably going to get me in trouble someday. There is this study on developing an algorithm for genetic risk in MS based on 16 alleles from larger studies that are highly correlated with MS.
Someone I know, but won't mention any names, had their genome mapped and just for giggles found this interesting way of adding up the risk, which came out to 3.75 total for whatever risk alleles were there. It seemed pretty straightforward at first until getting farther down in the study where this person's eyes began to cross due to the long-forgotten statistical terminology involved.
If anyone is good with statistics, it would be interesting to know if this weighted genetic risk of 3.75 could indicate being part of the high risk category? I think that's what it means, but I'm not confident in interpreting it that way and would like other opinions if anyone is willing.
The link addy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...9/?tool=pubmed
Someone I know, but won't mention any names, had their genome mapped and just for giggles found this interesting way of adding up the risk, which came out to 3.75 total for whatever risk alleles were there. It seemed pretty straightforward at first until getting farther down in the study where this person's eyes began to cross due to the long-forgotten statistical terminology involved.
If anyone is good with statistics, it would be interesting to know if this weighted genetic risk of 3.75 could indicate being part of the high risk category? I think that's what it means, but I'm not confident in interpreting it that way and would like other opinions if anyone is willing.
The link addy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...9/?tool=pubmed
Comment