[GenABEL-dev] Journal Club on Statistical Genomics

[Maria G]

1) Forum name:

Journal Club on Statistical Genomics

2) Short description: 

Statistical Genomics for dummies and advanced. Discussions, links, usefull information

3) Forum rules:

Welcome! Please feel free to raise any issue. There is no issues big or small. Let's work on them together  

4) Topics to start:

(1) Notes on GWAs: Quality Control / Quality Assurance 
(2) P-values in GWAs: different approaches for significance estimations
(3) Usefull tools for a nice representation of the GWAS results
(4) Role models: The high quality papers


best
Mascha

05.04.2011, 15:31, "Yurii Aulchenko" <yurii.aulchenko at gmail.com>:
> Ok, seems that we have our minds settled.
>
> Mascha, can you please propose
>
> 1) Forum name
>
> 2) Short description (in GenABEL it is "Questions about GenABEL (aka
> *ABEL) suite of packages")
>
> 3) Forum rules. In GenABEL-user it is
>
> Please remember not to post any sensitive data on this public forum.
> When get a solution to the problem you posted, please change the topic
> name (e.g. from "how to ..." to "[SOLVED] how to ..."). This will make
> it easier for the community to follow the posts yet to be attended.
>
> I could think of making a very short list of topics in line with what
> you have already proposed.
>
> When we have above settled, we can start.
>
> best wishes,
> Yurii
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Maria G <mgmaria at yandex.ru>; wrote:
>
>>  Sounds good! Let's see what will happend :)
>>
>>  01.04.2011, 23:51, "L.C. Karssen" <l.karssen at erasmusmc.nl>;:
>>>  On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 19:17 +0200, Yurii Aulchenko wrote:
>>>>   Ok, I see your point. I would suggest we take an 'evolutionary'
>>>>   approach.
>>>  I agree.
>>>>    Let me elaborate a bit on that.
>>>>   I would think the same may work for the methodology forum. At first,
>>>>   introduce single forum, and then see how it goes. I actually can
>>>>   imagine that we may be willing to move few topics (or posts) from
>>>>   GenABEL-user to the methodology discussion :)
>>>  Indeed. I think this is the way to go to.
>>>
>>>  Lennart.