@zaminiqbal.bsky.social it'd be more like a bell curve (or at least unimodal) if people published the results of all tests they ran, right? The Gelman article shows the nice counter-example of clinical trial primary endpoints, which do tend to publish most results, not just positive ones.

Yes. That is why it is funny.

Yeah ok, sorry I got that wrong. I just think it's funny that this image is a bit of a Deep Meme (a joke parody of a real Hellebore cover) and none of the articles have gone into the weeds of what it actually is.

The Guardian article seems to think it is a real Hellebore cover, but it's a riff on this real cover

Sad that the news articles didn't communicate that this was a Wind In The Willows-based parody of a Folk Horror magazine cover. Neo-pagan meme culture breaking containment.

Parquet works really well with R as well. I use it all the time to work with GWAS summary statistics that won't fit into memory (our latest metabolite GWAS tested 95M+ variants in UKBB). Here's a minimal example of how to filter data on the fly while reading into R: gist.github.com/kauralasoo/f...

TIHYLTTW is just too perfect a name to give up, even if it makes it less marketable. One of my all-time favourite book titles.

Significant after correcting for 0.98 tests

Both of these guys talk very directly to my heart

A true *history of Britain

The first seems to be 18th century, marked by Hume and Gibbon treating the legends as myths built upon a real minor local figure. The second, generally believing that Arthur was entirely fictional (or a broad composite of people) is much more recent (our lifetimes).

Nicholas Higham has a book that tries to answer that ("King Arthur. Myth-Making and History"). There are basically two stages: when did people stop believing the Arthurian romances were a true historian of Britain, and when did people stop believing Arthur was likely to be a real person at all.

It's a great book but I don't recall it having anything in particular about when people stopped believing in the truth of the Arthurian legends.

Nice to see evidence we didn't just dream all these loci up.

The link from MAML2 notch signalling in DCs to systemic IL12/23 levels is interesting. Any idea what MAML2 is doing in DCs? I think most of the work to date has been in salivary glands (where MAML2 somatic mutations drive cancer).

@bradleyomics.bsky.social great work guys, well done

To see which of these underpin susceptibility, we colocalised these with IBD GWAS. Remarkably, we nominate effector genes at an enormous 74 (❗) loci where one has not previously been nominated in @OpenTargets. This therefore SUBSTANTIALLY improves on previous efforts. 10/