|
My employer is partially subsidizing a mid-range genetic test from a local company, but only until the end of the year so I have to use it or lose it. It'd cost me ~$160 worth of non-cash benefits that I can spend on stuff like medicine or concerts but not cash out, so I'm not really taking money out of pocket, but there's an opportunity cost. Supposedly it should be able to detect genetic predisposition for:
This isn't in the US so it's not specifically about 23 and me or others but I'm wondering what is the general state of the tech as I wasn't able to find much locally. Are these tests generally reasonably accurate? Do the provide any actionable insights? Is this some sort of Gattaca poo poo?
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Not so much about the tech per se, but there are some pretty huge privacy issues - not something I'd really considered before reading that article.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
I'd just go for it, personally, but then I'm one of those "would rather know" types, whereas many people have an "ignorance is bliss" mindset. If you do: Just remember that whatever results you do get will mostly be "X% possibility of", where X is a proper bastard to accurately quantify. In short, you could be told that they think, based on whatever science is available then and there, that you've got a 700% increased risk of so-and-so type of cancer. That does absolutely not mean you're going to get it – keep in mind, a 700% increase of, say, a 0.01% chance is still stupid low. What it does mean is that you might want to take screening for that type a bit more seriously in the future than you otherwise would. The same goes for all kinds of diseases and conditions you might get a warning for. Rule of thumb is the more common a condition is, the more accurate a DNA predisposition test would be, simply due to better sample sizes. If you take the test, you might get some heads-ups you otherwise might not have gotten, and if you're predisposed for something like diabetes, some added impetus for living a little healthier. Just as long as you don't freak out, it can't hurt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Hi, I worked at one of these places for a while and designed tests for them, here's how it works out. (FDA and GINA are US-specific laws) Your sample is sent to a lab where we pull the DNA out of the sample, then make a ton of copies of it so we have enough to do our tests. These tests read the actual base pairs, which gets put against a database with literature containing those DNA sequences. A Ph.D/MD level geneticist looks at the literature and writes up a short paper based on their findings against existing research. It's not massively peer-reviewed, but the quality is generally pretty good. The data is protected by GINA and a lot of other medical privacy laws, but there have been breaches before. Some places like 23 and Me anonymize your data and use it for Google/Verily's nefarious purposes. I have seen some places that sequence your DNA and just give you the file with no curation. These are obviously not licensed or certified in most cases and I would avoid them. While some of the tests themselves are FDA-certified, some aren't. I describe it kind of like a supplement- it's not medical advice, but used properly they can guide you in the right direction. I had a few tests run when I was working there, and the health outcomes from the test were accurate. I don't think it's a bad idea, they're not expensive tests in the grand scheme of things and they can inform you in a few important ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
It be kinda of funny if everyone predisposed to major health risks finds thjob.emselves out of a job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Otto Von Jizzmark posted:It be kinda of funny if everyone predisposed to major health risks finds thjob.emselves out of a job. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:41
|
|
