This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 600 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Shouldn't this diagram (Twin-concordances.jpg) visually reflect the numbers cited in the
User:Everymorning has added not just 1, but 3 recent edits basically repeating the same theme: when GxE interactions are present, interpretation of results from e.g. classical twin design is difficult. Now, everybody working in the field already knows this. Perhaps he can explain his vision for how he wants this point to be communicated in the page. Right now looks to me like he wants to insert it multiple places in the article using different references and slightly different wordings. That doesn't seem like an optimal approach. Why not mainstream textbooks or reviews as sources? This edit is particularly problematic as the cited source is wildly out of date (1990) and is by some seemingly randomly chosen critic ( Wahlsten). This edit is problematic as it inserts an extreme minority view as being recognized fact in the page. General opinion in the field is that while large GxE interactions will cause trouble for interpretation, generally tests have failed to identify such large interactions. Plomin et al (2012) discusses GxE in chapter 8, p. 118ff. Their summary of research does not give the picture Wahlsten prefers, rather, they cite a lot of research done GxE done using traditional pedigree designs including twins and adoptees. Some of the research cited has since fallen prey to the replication crisis or later meta-analysis (e.g. the Morfitt GxE finding), but I don't have a copy of the latest version (2016, 7th ed.) of the textbook to see how it changed. Plomin et al does mention that many studies of candidate variant/gene GxE failed to replicate. Deleet ( talk) 22:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Polderman et al. (2015): Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285
I'd guess this should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 ( talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 600 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Shouldn't this diagram (Twin-concordances.jpg) visually reflect the numbers cited in the
User:Everymorning has added not just 1, but 3 recent edits basically repeating the same theme: when GxE interactions are present, interpretation of results from e.g. classical twin design is difficult. Now, everybody working in the field already knows this. Perhaps he can explain his vision for how he wants this point to be communicated in the page. Right now looks to me like he wants to insert it multiple places in the article using different references and slightly different wordings. That doesn't seem like an optimal approach. Why not mainstream textbooks or reviews as sources? This edit is particularly problematic as the cited source is wildly out of date (1990) and is by some seemingly randomly chosen critic ( Wahlsten). This edit is problematic as it inserts an extreme minority view as being recognized fact in the page. General opinion in the field is that while large GxE interactions will cause trouble for interpretation, generally tests have failed to identify such large interactions. Plomin et al (2012) discusses GxE in chapter 8, p. 118ff. Their summary of research does not give the picture Wahlsten prefers, rather, they cite a lot of research done GxE done using traditional pedigree designs including twins and adoptees. Some of the research cited has since fallen prey to the replication crisis or later meta-analysis (e.g. the Morfitt GxE finding), but I don't have a copy of the latest version (2016, 7th ed.) of the textbook to see how it changed. Plomin et al does mention that many studies of candidate variant/gene GxE failed to replicate. Deleet ( talk) 22:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Polderman et al. (2015): Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285
I'd guess this should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 ( talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)