Yoav Gilad

@Y_Gilad

Professor of Medicine and Chief of Genetic Medicine. Professor of Human Genetics. University of Chicago

Chicago IL USA
ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ 2014 ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿದ್ದಾರೆ

ಟ್ವೀಟ್‌ಗಳು

ನೀವು @Y_Gilad ಅವರನ್ನು ತಡೆಹಿಡಿದಿರುವಿರಿ

ಈ ಟ್ವೀಟ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಲು ನೀವು ಖಚಿತವಾಗಿ ಬಯಸುವಿರಾ? ಟ್ವೀಟ್ ವೀಕ್ಷಣೆಯು @Y_Gilad ಅವರ ತಡೆತೆರವುಗೊಳಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ

  1. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 17

    Inferring Compensatory Evolution of cis- and trans-Regulatory Variation

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  2. ಡಿಸೆಂ 18

    Third, in contrast to common belief, there is nearly always a general agreement among reviewers when it comes to distinguishing between the best applications (scores of 1-3) to the worst (6-9). We disagree a lot about the range in between, but I find this to be entirely expected.

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  3. ಡಿಸೆಂ 18

    This is also not a majority vote – an expert reviewer can convince the study section that they are correct (in favor or against an application), while the other main reviewers may remain unconvinced or – more likely - simply did not bother to change their original written review.

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  4. ಡಿಸೆಂ 18

    Second, just because you received a wide range of scores from the reviewers does not mean that the process is random. Different reviewers have different expertise and pay attention to different aspects of your proposal.

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  5. ಡಿಸೆಂ 18

    Different reviewers weigh different aspects differently. For example, it is not uncommon for me to give a terrific score (1 or 2) to every aspect of the proposal other than the approach and for the overall impact score to be closer to the poor score I gave the approach…

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  6. ಡಿಸೆಂ 18

    First, applicants do not know the impact scores. The scores people report in their posts complaining about the process are given to individual aspects of the proposal – you don’t know how the reviewers combined these into an overall impact score (which is not reported).

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  7. ಡಿಸೆಂ 18

    With the recent onslaught of posts about the randomness and capricious nature of NIH reviews, I'd like to make a few statements. I agree that the review process is far from optimal, but I do not think it is the random process that many seem to believe:

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  8. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 14

    and I are looking for a postdoc who wants to answer important questions in immune biology/disease. You'll be using cutting edge genomics and computational methods and join an environment that care deeply about biology. See our ad , plz retweet!

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  9. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 14
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  10. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 13
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  11. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 12

    Check out my recent talk on managing mixed installations of and pkgs with conda from . And yes, there are plenty of The Good Place gifs. Watch to learn how to enter The Installation Good Place!

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  12. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 11

    TADs: cause or consequence of genome function? More discussion 👇👇👇

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  13. ಡಿಸೆಂ 9

    Thank you, again, to everyone who replied and participated in the TAD discussion. I was aware of roughly 70% of the papers you mentioned, so this has been truly helpful to me. It is time now to do some reading -- and thinking...

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  14. ಡಿಸೆಂ 8

    Thank you to everyone who replied. Let me ask: Are there examples of funtional insight or prediction we wouldn't have without considering TADs other than the TADs themselves? Think super enhancers / enhancers (though I'm asking a question here, not making a statement... yet).

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  15. ಡಿಸೆಂ 8

    Is this the paper that first reported TADs?

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  16. ಡಿಸೆಂ 7

    It is wonderful when good things happen to good people, and Harmit is one of the best. Congratulations my friend.

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  17. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 5

    Excited to share our most recent work led by : Natural selection contributed to immunological differences between human hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists. Great collab with lab with contributions from many others 1/5

    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  18. ಡಿಸೆಂ 5

    Maybe you should not apply to places that require your references to snail-mail or fax letters on your behalf (no email or upload option); it might indicate a certain lack of flexibility in that place, eg., they might expect you to sequence your samples on gels etc.

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  19. ಅವರು ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 5

    Nobody else but the incredibly hard-working could've finished the race and turned this into such a rigorous, gorgeous paper. Check it out!

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  20. ಡಿಸೆಂ 4

    I am not going to disclose how long it took us to bring this one to the finish line. Let's just say that we collected these data from frozen tissues before we established the comparative iPSC panel. If you know our work you can do the math...

    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು

ಲೋಡಿಂಗ್ ಸಮಯ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವಂತೆನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

Twitter ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಮೀರಿರಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಕ್ಷಣಿಕವಾದ ತೊಂದರೆಯನ್ನು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರಬಹುದು. ಮತ್ತೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ Twitter ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ.

    ಇದನ್ನೂ ಸಹ ನೀವು ಇಷ್ಟಪಡಬಹುದು

    ·