You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
PGS000116 is anti-correlated to all of the other scores in EFO_0001645. Moreover, the journal article associated with it never mentions PGS000116, not even in supplementary text. So, it makes me think that the creator didn't upload it but someone else did. Was it mistakenly multiplied by -1 and is therefore a resilience rather than disease risk score? I also wonder about PGS003727 ...
Could the score overview web page have additional detail about precisely who uploaded the score?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @DarioS, correct many of the scores in the Catalog are curated by extracting information from the source publications. I have previously double checked the original author-reported files from their figshare and we are currently consistent with their notation. Indeed, others have noted that this score appears flipped to us and when I’ve used it in my own work I’ve used the score as-is but taken the reciprocal effect size to make it the same direction as the other CAD scores when comparing it’s performance. I’ll e-mail the authors again to double-check, but we try to keep as close to the author-reported files as possible (so the data provenance is clear).
We will consider your suggestion about whether to mark the source of the data, it it known to us internally.
PGS000116 is anti-correlated to all of the other scores in EFO_0001645. Moreover, the journal article associated with it never mentions PGS000116, not even in supplementary text. So, it makes me think that the creator didn't upload it but someone else did. Was it mistakenly multiplied by -1 and is therefore a resilience rather than disease risk score? I also wonder about PGS003727 ...
Could the score overview web page have additional detail about precisely who uploaded the score?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: