iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

ME/CFS Science @mecfsscience.org · 10/08/2025

1) Saw some skepticism about DecodeME, asking if it is overhyped. As an account that focuses on critically analyzing research (our name was 'ME/CFS Skeptic' for a reason!), we think it’s the real deal. Here are a couple of reasons why it stands out. 🧵

47027

ME/CFS Science @mecfsscience.org · 10/08/2025

2) First, there is the sample size: 15.000 participants dwarfs any other ME/CFS study in comparison. Try finding biomedical ME/CFS studies with more than 1000 participants: there are almost none...

1222

baszkom.bsky.social @baszkom.bsky.social · 10/08/2025

I took a screenshot at about 9pm on Wednesday. It was surreal seeing these headlines. Major media outlets all publishing at the same time.

Screenshot of a google search on news articles about MECFS on Wednesday 6 August (two hours after the DecodeME findings announcment). Headlines: The Guardian "Scientists find link between genes and MECFS. The Telegraph: ME is a real illness, genetic study finds. Financial Times: Chronic fatigue patients have different genes, study finds. The Times: Breakthrough genertic study offers treatment hope for ME patients. Channel 4: ME linked to your genetics - early study indicates. New Scientist: Key genetic differences found in people with CFS.

040

Andreas Longva @andlon.bsky.social · 10/08/2025

Would it make sense to use the presence of these genes as admissibility criteria for inclusion in trials? I realize that this might exclude some/many patients from participation, but I wonder if it could help with the problem of heterogeneity in the patient population

110

Miriam E. Tucker @miriametucker.bsky.social · 10/08/2025

All valid points, but it still needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Preprints must always be viewed as provisional.

350