Evidence Relationship: Supports
Vote on whether "Simulation of the Nordic discordance design showed PGS balance detects evocative rGE only when the true evocative path exceeds beta = 0.09" is good evidence that supports the claim "Discordant sibling pairs in the Nordic cohort showed no difference in polygenic score for depression (d = 0.02)"
Evidence Claim
Simulation of the Nordic discordance design showed PGS balance detects evocative rGE only when the true evocative path exceeds beta = 0.09
Ruiz-Marten (2023) simulated the Palm design under varying evocative rGE strengths using the observed PGS predictive power. Power to detect imbalance was 0.81 at beta = 0.09 but only 0.28 at beta = 0.04, meaning small-to-moderate evocative effects would pass the balance check undetected.
Main Claim
Discordant sibling pairs in the Nordic cohort showed no difference in polygenic score for depression (d = 0.02)
Follow-up genotyping of 6,800 exposure-discordant pairs (Palm et al., 2022) found that the exposed and unexposed sibling did not differ on a depression PGS derived from an independent GWAS. Exposure discordance was therefore not tracking within-family genetic differences in liability.
Log in to join the discussion.
This is the kind of thing I wish more sub-evidence looked like. It doesn't overturn the parent, it tells you the parent's resolution.