Hello There, Guest!  

[OQSPS] Does sub-European genomic ancestry predict outcomes for US states?

#11
(2016-Sep-04, 06:13:43)Emil Wrote: No particular hypothesis were proposed aside from that based on known group means in cognitive ability. This is a weak prediction because immigrant selection affects the mean cognitive ability level of the immigrants who enter the country. Still, it was worth checking out because the data was available and it was a known limitation of our larger earlier admixture analyses. Would you like me to add a few words about this in the introduction?


Yes, I think that would improve the paper. For the same reason, the abstract seemed to end abruptly. I was expecting another sentence stating why there were no effects. Perhaps mention the sampling bias issue (23andme customers have a higher, more narrow range of IQs)???

Maybe it's for other papers, but does temperature/latitude correlate with sub-group ancestry? I was also wondering about religiosity. You don't have to include these; just curious.

Is 50 really a small sample size, if each data point is derived from 1000s of cases?

Footnote 5, change "data is" to "data are".

I think it would be useful to also include the simple correlation matrix with IQ, S, and the sub-group percents.
 Reply
#12
(2016-Sep-04, 15:33:22)bpesta22 Wrote:
(2016-Sep-04, 06:13:43)Emil Wrote: No particular hypothesis were proposed aside from that based on known group means in cognitive ability. This is a weak prediction because immigrant selection affects the mean cognitive ability level of the immigrants who enter the country. Still, it was worth checking out because the data was available and it was a known limitation of our larger earlier admixture analyses. Would you like me to add a few words about this in the introduction?


Yes, I think that would improve the paper. For the same reason, the abstract seemed to end abruptly. I was expecting another sentence stating why there were no effects. Perhaps mention the sampling bias issue (23andme customers have a higher, more narrow range of IQs)???

Maybe it's for other papers, but does temperature/latitude correlate with sub-group ancestry? I was also wondering about religiosity. You don't have to include these; just curious.

Is 50 really a small sample size, if each data point is derived from 1000s of cases?

Footnote 5, change "data is" to "data are".

I think it would be useful to also include the simple correlation matrix with IQ, S, and the sub-group percents.


Bryan,

The reason no such claim was made in the abstract is that.. I don't know. I suspect it's a power issue, but one cannot say with certainty for now. The matter is discussed in the discussion.

I read my introduction, but it seems fine to me. It mentions previous literature investigating the issue, sets the theoretical background. However, to make you happier, I have added a paragraph in the Discussion discussing the theoretical prediction in more detail and why it is not a strong prediction due to confounds.

As discussed in the paper, only relative differences between states in ancestry matter, not absolute levels. The effect of this kind of positive selection is to reduce the variation in ancestry, at least theoretically at the maximum selection level. However, depending on the ranking of the ancestries and the amount of selection, it might increase variance before decreasing it. It's not really possible to say which influence it has in the present study with certainty.

A simple size of 50 is small no matter how many people it is an average of. State-level confounding effects (such as location) do not care about how many persons went into an average used for that state. For models with many predictors, N=50 is very small.

Changed to "data are".

I have added a new subsection with the correlations between ancestries and outcomes as requested. Some odd results, presumably due to outliers. LASSO tends to get rid of outlier effects because it uses cross-validation (based on resampling) to estimate the shrinkage parameter.

I have rewritten a few sentences here and there.

And added your name to the Acknowledgements section. :)

New version uploaded, version 6.

https://osf.io/3nghx/files/
 Reply
#13
Thanks Emil,

The paper is pretty straightforward, and I think you've addressed the few concerns I had. I'm ok approving.

Bryan
 Reply
#14
Negative results, OK, but also negative results need to be published to avoid publication bias and needless duplication of effort. This is probably all that could be done with the available data. Throwing additional predictors into the already overfitted regression models (like measures of climate, natural resources, presence of non-European populations etc) is not an option. Also, it would capitalize on chance. I think the paper should be published, because it shows that more fine-grained measures, for example from counties, or temporal trend measures, are required.
 Reply
#15
This paper now has 3 approvals as required for publication (Noah Carl, Bryan Pesta, and Meisenberg).

I will work out a final version and Julius will make it pretty.
 Reply
#16
Published.

http://openpsych.net/OQSPS/2016/09/does-...us-states/
 Reply
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)