It looks like they have found a stastically significant correlation with a very small effect size, using an extremely simple regression model adjusting for only a handful of covariates, looking across, presumably, tens of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of SNPs.
It seems highly irresponsible to title such a study in a way implying a mechanistic or causal link. I expected to find a whole lot of discussion in the post about all the other evidence supporting it, but nope - they shoved their data into a stats package, and put the result straight into a blog post with a misleading title. They don't even discuss if they adjusted for multiple testing.
There's peer reviewed science, then there are pre-prints pending review. This is farfar below either of those.
As long as your performance in the Social Media Metrics driven arms race for Attention increasingly determines what funding/employees/clients you attract, this kind of behavior will continue and escalate.
Maybe the title for this post has been changed but when I read it, and read the PR, they are both very cautious to just note that this Evidence For, not Proof Of, or, mechanism or causality.
It seems highly irresponsible to title such a study in a way implying a mechanistic or causal link. I expected to find a whole lot of discussion in the post about all the other evidence supporting it, but nope - they shoved their data into a stats package, and put the result straight into a blog post with a misleading title. They don't even discuss if they adjusted for multiple testing.
There's peer reviewed science, then there are pre-prints pending review. This is far far below either of those.