Here are traffic deaths by age group: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6806a8.htm. Let's pad those numbers up by a significant amount and assign 20 per 100,000 from birth, and remove those deaths from the life tables (ie let's say noone dies from traffic accidents in the USA). That still only lifts life expectancy by 1 year (from 78.6 to 79.6)
You can keep adding other parts of accidental deaths but: 1) they don't fit the story of USA dying more from driving 2) the leftovers are already below the accidental death rate from countries with much higher life expectancy 3) a big chunk of the rest is accidental falls which predominantly affects very old people so doesn't have a big impact on life expectancy
The best thing I've read about cross-country longevity, and I don't even care about its main point (ie USA healthcare spending). If you have a Patreon account or something similar please post it. I want more of this.
This is from DeepMind. They rarely release source code at the time that the paper is submitted/published. They often release source code later on. While not ideal it seems like a billion times better than the situation where they don't publish at all. I don't think any of their results are fake so if nothing else it's a signal that says "this is possible to do in a way roughly described within".
I travel a fair bit and stay at the hotels here and there. I keep wondering, how long before hotels start sampling your personal belongings (toothbrush, comb etc) for gen data. Maybe that already happening? From there, how long before full lists of these data {genetic sample; full name and other credentials} are on sale on some special market?
Call me paranoid... is that sort of activity even regulated? Isn't this like a public image for photography?
Well, if we're being paranoid they probably don't need to touch your personal belongings. They just have to have a look at the bed sheets after you've slept on them.
...or to get your DNA they can work it out from the "deposited" DNA of your close relatives. There will be no hiding! :P
Sure! What I specifically meant (sorry, was unclear) is, how long before such activity becomes lucrative enough for hotels to routinely perform? ("hotels" == entities in a completely unrelated lines of business) I.e., there is stable market for these data and the procedure isn't very costly in recurring expenses (no costly extraction from "noisy" support).
Thank you very much for that first link. It seems to be severely under-publicised considering the huge amount of exposure that the topic gets.
Do you happen to know if rs1229984 is linked to any particular group that could make this result problematic? I noticed that the paper mentions that "There was also some evidence for a difference in years of education, and, while the size of the effect was small, this requires further investigation." That sounds like a decent-sized red flag.
Take a look at the population frequencies on the right. While the minor allele is infrequent in Europeans, it is extremely common in East Asians, for example.
> Do you happen to know if rs1229984 is linked to any particular group that could make this result problematic?
It seems to me that we would not have to know about the link in order for the conclusions to be unfounded. These MR analyses rest on the assumption that the instrument is not linked to any potential confounders. This seems like a bold and unwarranted assumption when we are talking about an instrument linked to behavior, given the complexity of the chain of events (chemical, biological, and psychological) between gene expression and observable human behavior.
That education red flag involves just one possible confounder out of many that were never considered.
That's the list and figure for women. For men you have to see the next graph which is slightly different. Then the next two graphs show you that outside of the US the opiod epidemic is not a big part of the reason. Then when you look at the 2016 estimates table you see that this is all just noise except for the UK and the US.
While I agree with the general sentiment that CR is probably not very useful for humans, I think you are either misinformed or exaggerating for the sake of generating a response.
Ad-libitum feeding is not force feeding. Noone goes and shoves the food into mice. The food is just available.
Ok, I'll concede that calling it force feeding is a bit tabloid, but the end result I described is undisputed - ad libitum feeding results in obesity in the control animals. Which indisputably muddies the waters for the results, since you don't know whether CR extends lifespans or AL feeding shortens lifespans in these animals.
The dog study you link also highlights another issue with this kind of research: they focus on osteoarthritis, i.e. cartilege in joints being worn out over time, since that was the most common chronic disease. This occurred equally often in both groups, but time until first treatment for this condition was 25% longer in the CR group. That's exactly what you expect just from the 25% reduced body mass of CR fed dogs which they report, since reduced body mass puts less stress on the joints. No attempt is made to account for this, it is not even mentioned as a confounding variable.
Taken together with the fact that they don't observe any significant increase in maximum lifespan of the CR fed dogs, it's again very unclear whether this is anything more than confirming the well-established result that when you inevitably get a chronic disease, higher body mass means you get sick faster.
I didn't see them mention which version they were using, presumably GATK3. I'm curious to see what it'd look like against GATK4 which is being released in a month.
Just a nitpick, but the original didn't do better than human scores. It does better than their human panel, who seem to suck at space invaders and a whole bunch of other games. In general DQN does worse than expected at space invaders for some reason (compared to, say, galaxian, a very similar game, at which it does very well)
Here are traffic deaths by age group: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6806a8.htm. Let's pad those numbers up by a significant amount and assign 20 per 100,000 from birth, and remove those deaths from the life tables (ie let's say noone dies from traffic accidents in the USA). That still only lifts life expectancy by 1 year (from 78.6 to 79.6)
You can keep adding other parts of accidental deaths but: 1) they don't fit the story of USA dying more from driving 2) the leftovers are already below the accidental death rate from countries with much higher life expectancy 3) a big chunk of the rest is accidental falls which predominantly affects very old people so doesn't have a big impact on life expectancy