On average across traits, the three methods produced remarkably similar estimates of ~30%. Most (~85%) of this variance could already be estimated by common variant GWAS run on the same samples. Strikingly, classical twin estimates for these traits were ~2x higher!
So there you have it, twin study estimates were greatly inflated, and molecular data sets the record straight. I walk through possible counter-arguments, but ultimately the uncomfortable truth is that genes contribute to traits much less than we always thought.
Nov 21, 2025 22:33
