Sign in

Tabea Schoeler

@tabeasch.bsky.social
240 followers 169 following 28 posts

Researcher at University of Lausanne | interested in genetic epidemiology, mental health & behaviour

PostsRepliesMedia
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
7/ However, effect size estimates showed less agreement between the two designs (r = 0.74). Similar to the phenotypic findings, differences were primarily due to gene-by-cohort effects, where genetic associations vary across birth years, introducing bias into cross-sectional estimates.
101
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
6/ Among the identified SNPs, 86% showed consistent interpretation across designs regarding the direction of age-varying genetic effects. These included both attenuation with age (e.g., for obesogenic traits) and intensification over time (e.g., for disease burden and medication use).
101
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
5/ At the genetic level, we identified 57 SNPs with significant age-varying effects. Most were detected in the cross-sectional design, likely reflecting greater statistical power due to larger sample sizes and broader age ranges.
100
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
4/ We observed that this likely reflects confounding by year-of-birth effects (e.g., younger cohorts tend to smoke less), which can bias age estimates in cross-sectional analyses.
101
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
3/ RESULTS: At the phenotypic level, cross-sectional and longitudinal age effects showed only moderate agreement. For several traits, especially lifestyle behaviours, effects differed in their direction: e.g., smoking appeared to increase with age cross-sectionally but declined longitudinally.
101
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
2/ Using data on 31 health-related traits from the UK Biobank, we focused on two questions: 🔹 Do the two designs lead to the same conclusions? 🔹 If not, what are the sources of bias that account for the observed discrepancies?
101
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 19/05/2025
Further, we found little evidence of common risks shared by (cross-sectional) level of functioning and (longitudinal) decline in cognitive and physical outcomes (11/11)
100
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 19/05/2025
In total, 7 loci associated with longitudinal decline, implicating APOE and DUSP6 as the top genes associated with cognitive and physical decline, respectively. Overall, there was little overlap between the genetics of decline and physical/cognitive function (8/)
100
Tabea Schoeler @tabeasch.bsky.social · 19/05/2025
We find that residual change scores introduce bias by falsely associating cross-sectional (time-invariant) genetic effects with change. In contrast, models capturing absolute and relative change are more robust in identifying longitudinal genetic effects (4/)
100