Thank you for clearly articulating what's needed. Scientists need to have the courage to defend what they know to be right.

I would bust out a slide rule for that one

I thought this was super cool too! Amazing that they can infer allele specific effects in these kind of data. But in the end I'm not sure it uncovers a ton more parent of origin effects than were previously known?

Wow

Thanks for this thoughtful and lucid exposition of an important issue that (alas) goes well beyond a single paper or group of authors. Neurogenomics deserves rigorous standards, so we don't squander the potential of large-scale sequencing for answering fundamental questions about the brain.

I guess it really was a Stanford thing...

Ofc the guy bringing EANABS to the party is not going to be the most popular one there, but I guess someone has to help the field avoid a hangover

I remember when I was in grad school the Stanford ugrads were partying too much, so the Univ mandated all gatherings had to have EANABS-- equally attractive non alcoholic beverages.

We need EANABS for stats--methods that are powerful and insightful but without cutting corners in rigor.

Is Multiome OMG a new kit from 10x? :)

Aww thanks Jessica, your encouragement helped me shake the feeling that I must be crazy.

I guess this topic is not going away anytime soon.

Collaboration is great! An good computational collaborator can come up with many interesting and powerful ways of looking at data that don't require cutting corners on rigor.

Indeed. I think the topic of sex differences is rife with shoddy stats. I even wrote a similar thing about it in the context of brain sex differences. I guess the temptation to ignore pesky statistical standards is just irresistible.

www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S000...