Submitted via IRC for Bytram
The findings, published this week in Nature Communications, suggest that, although heavy drinking is a prerequisite for AUD, variants in several genes -- DRD2 and SIX3, for example -- may need to be present for people to develop AUD.
"This study has revealed an important genetic independence of these two traits that we haven't seen as clearly before," said Henry R. Kranzler, MD, a professor of Psychiatry in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and first author of the study. "Focusing on variants only linked to AUD may help identify people at risk and find targets for the development of medications to treat it. The same applies to alcohol consumption, as those variants could inform interventions to help reduce consumption in heavy drinkers, who face their own set of adverse effects."
[...] Environmental, hereditary, and genetic factors all play a role in AUD; however, many of the variants across the genome believed to be associated with the disorder remain to be identified.
For the study, the researchers used genetic data from the multi-ethnic Million Veteran Program (MVP), a national, voluntary research program sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which includes white, African-American, Latino, and Asian participants. The diverse study sample is notable, in that it included more than 50,000 African-Americans, one of the largest genome-wide studies of this population. Scores from the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) screenings and AUD diagnoses were obtained from the same population (a total of 274,424 people) to conduct the GWAS for the two traits. The researchers also analyzed other data from health records to look for correlations between genes and diseases, as well as other non-alcohol related traits.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @06:01PM (4 children)
Literacy? Literacy is putting the definition of the acronym first -- pedantic but incorrect morons put it anywhere. Behold:
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 04 2019, @07:58PM (3 children)
The funny part about this is that while your assessment WRT the use of acronyms is quite correct, in this case your implication that the author is illiterate appears to be incorrect.
While TFS quotes a *portion* of the abstract, there is a summary in TFA, *before* said abstract, that states (in the first sentence, no less):
So it turns out that the author(s) did use the acronym correctly.
And thank you very much for sparking my curiosity. Not! Now I'm filled with murderous rage because your screed actually made me read TFA. A pox on both your houses, you insensitive clod! :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 04 2019, @08:12PM (2 children)
The issue is that the deficit in TFS was so glaring, some people decided to just skip TFA.
For you, it had the opposite effect though. ;-)
The question is then, will a bad summary cause more people to avoid the topic out of annoyance, or more people to investigate the topic out of annoyance. I'm sure writers of clickbait have a deeper insight on this than I do, but I would prefer a nice, neat, clean, informative summary.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 04 2019, @08:34PM (1 child)
For me, that's dependent on several factors:
Am I in a rush?
Does what I can see make me want to see more?
Do the *comments* engage me enough to take a look?
Ooh! Look! Shiny! And I'm off to something else?
In this case, I was confused about the meaning of AUD in this context.
While you didn't (or did you?) read TFA, you did choose to engage on this topic. What factors made you decide to engage?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 04 2019, @09:39PM
Annoyance caused me to engage and a lack of personal meaningfulness regarding the topic probably induced me to engage as I did. If TFS had been clean and clear, I probably would not have engaged at all (neither I nor anyone I know has an alcohol problem). The genetic component was of enough interest to me to read TFS, but the opaque nature of TFS caused my annoyance (I did not RTFA) and I then came to comment on a tangent to a story I would likely never have commented on at all if TFS was well done.
If Soylent's sole purpose was feeding advertising to eyeballs, TFS as written would have been a win but if it had been written well, it would be a loss to an advertising focused site because I would not have clicked.