Embryo‑selection risk claims often rely on the liability‑threshold model, which turns continuous traits into yes/no diseases. Small score‑driven shifts can push many people just below a cutoff, producing impressive relative 'risk reductions' that hide minimal real‑world change. For traits like obesity or type 2 diabetes, this can make modest phenotypic shifts look like dramatic cures.
— This challenges how genetic services are marketed and regulated, urging clearer communication and standards so consumers and policymakers aren’t misled by dichotomy‑driven statistics.
John Psmith
2026.01.12
85% relevant
The article explicitly discusses venture‑backed embryo‑selection startups promising 'smarter kids' and the author’s skepticism about biotech marketing; this maps directly onto the existing idea warning that selection claims are often driven by threshold models and marketing rather than large absolute gains.
2026.01.05
90% relevant
The article markets IQ and disease‑risk gains from embryo selection — a context where dichotomizing continuous trait distributions (threshold models) produces headline risk reductions; that matches the existing critique that embryo‑selection claims often overstate benefit by relying on cutoffs and relative rather than absolute improvements.
Steve Hsu
2026.01.01
74% relevant
The episode emphasizes embryo‑selection marketing and headline claims about 'improved outcomes' — which map to the warning that dichotomous threshold framing (liability‑threshold models) can exaggerate perceived benefits of embryo selection; Hsu’s coverage underscores how public messaging may rely on such statistical framing.
2025.10.07
100% relevant
The article’s BMI example: selection moves expected offspring from mean 41 to 40 (tiny change) yet yields a headline '50% risk reduction' for class III obesity due to the cutoff.