"Scientists may have identified a gene that causes severe...

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ]

Previous topic | Next topic

conundrum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,922
Location: third rock from one of many suns

25 Mar 2015, 7:20 pm

...autism in women"

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/25/82886 ... tudy-women

_________________
The existence of the leader who is wise
is barely known to those he leads.
He acts without unnecessary speech,
so that the people say,
'It happened of its own accord.' -Tao Te Ching, Verse 17

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

25 Mar 2015, 7:25 pm

1) Scientists may have identified a gene that causes severe autism in women.

OR

2) Scientists may not have identified a gene that causes severe autism in women.

OR

3) Scientists may have identified a gene that doesn't cause severe autism in women.

This is because Austism is not a disease; it is a disorder described by a collection of behaviors and comorbid conditions that may or may not have a genetic basis.

More study is needed.

Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

25 Mar 2015, 10:16 pm

A study with 13 participants... That's a small sample size.

_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

26 Mar 2015, 1:37 pm

Protogenoi wrote:

A study with 13 participants... That's a small sample size.

That's a sample of only 0.000,004,045 percent of the U.S. population - in the "micro-percent" range.

NOT statistically significant.

More study is needed.

conundrum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,922
Location: third rock from one of many suns

27 Mar 2015, 2:08 pm

Fnord wrote:

Protogenoi wrote:

A study with 13 participants... That's a small sample size.

That's a sample of only 0.000,004,045 percent of the U.S. population - in the "micro-percent" range.

NOT statistically significant.

More study is needed.

Very true...but at least this seems to pave the way for *justifying* more study.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

28 Mar 2015, 10:17 am

conundrum wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Protogenoi wrote:

A study with 13 participants... That's a small sample size.

That's a sample of only 0.000,004,045 percent of the U.S. population - in the "micro-percent" range. NOT statistically significant. More study is needed.

Very true...but at least this seems to pave the way for *justifying* more study.

It seems more like someone is trying to justify the issuance of more grant money on another useless *micro* study.

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 Mar 2015, 9:40 am

Fnord wrote:

It seems more like someone is trying to justify the issuance of more grant money on another useless *micro* study.

Yes and no... It is often referred to as a pilot study. Very small sample size to test proof of concept. It is common in the current science climate. It helps justify the funding for a larger study... The issue is that people take the pilot studies and run with the results.

_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.

Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1026
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

31 Mar 2015, 2:42 pm

The methodology is unclear, but seems to include more than the 13 who were chosen for special attention.

From the linked article:

Quote:

A genetics study with only 13 participants isn’t all that convincing, though. So, the researchers sifted through genetic data from thousands of other people, gathered from past studies. "We assessed thousands of additional patients to determine if the genetic signal we found was real," Turner says. The additional patients showed that, in general, people with autism tend to have mutations in this gene more often than people without. "There are a number of cases — more than we would have expected — that have a severe mutation in this gene.

Aniihya
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 771

01 Apr 2015, 10:22 pm

13 participants is usually counted as insufficient by most scientists. You need more than 100 to actually make it somewhat credible.

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

02 Apr 2015, 10:23 am

Aniihya wrote:

13 participants is usually counted as insufficient by most scientists. You need more than 100 to actually make it somewhat credible.

Please see my statement about pilot studies

_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.

lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,896
Location: On a planet where I don't belong.

02 Apr 2015, 2:35 pm

I'm a woman and I'm not severely autistic. Do they see all people with autism as someone who can't feed and clothe themselves and just sit there staring into space while slobbering and mumbling incoherently?

Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

02 Apr 2015, 8:16 pm

lostonearth35 wrote:

No. They aren't claiming that at all. They cited studies showing 20+ genes as a cause of autism, and then their own research showed a slight correlation showing another gene that separating severe autism with higher functioning autism.

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ]

Jump to:

"Scientists may have identified a gene that causes severe... Post Reply New Topic

"Scientists may have identified a gene that causes severe...