I'm thinking I'll stick to playing w/ Promethease for now.

Btw: I didn't run across your profile in the community section.

I'm thinking I'll stick to playing w/ Promethease for now.

Btw: I didn't run across your profile in the community section.

I'm thinking I'll stick to playing w/ Promethease for now.

Btw: I didn't run across your profile in the community section.

I'm thinking I'll stick to playing w/ Promethease for now.

Btw: I didn't run across your profile in the community section.

The UI is a little rough, but functional. Some of the artwork is quite good, but the look&feel of the dynamic elements isn't nearly as pretty. There are several visualizations, a relative risk which does not seem to render for me, a sized/colored ATCG (which seems a poor choice for what I think it wants to convey) as well as a 'visible human' style map which responds to mouse-overs and clicks. The last element is particularly well done, but seems more eye candy than scientific rigor. Notably visualizations in one of the main windows disappears when elements are moved outside the bounding box.

They appear to track 22 medical conditions which are classified as either high or low confidence, and for each there is a red/yellow/green high/med/low risk assignment. These also provide a % risk for european/asian/african populations vs 'my' data. Generally the site does link to pubmed, to backup the claims. I find the lack of an rs# makes it difficult to verify specific claims, but that is partly my bias showing through.

It all seems reasonable enough, but I'm not exactly overwhelmed. In fairness I've got a certain bias due to promethease, which is often similarly criticized.

The UI is a little rough, but functional. Some of the artwork is quite good, but the look&feel of the dynamic elements isn't nearly as pretty. There are several visualizations, a relative risk which does not seem to render for me, a sized/colored ATCG (which seems a poor choice for what I think it wants to convey) as well as a 'visible human' style map which responds to mouse-overs and clicks. The last element is particularly well done, but seems more eye candy than scientific rigor. Notably visualizations in one of the main windows disappears when elements are moved outside the bounding box.

They appear to track 22 medical conditions which are classified as either high or low confidence, and for each there is a red/yellow/green high/med/low risk assignment. These also provide a % risk for european/asian/african populations vs 'my' data. Generally the site does link to pubmed, to backup the claims. I find the lack of an rs# makes it difficult to verify specific claims, but that is partly my bias showing through.

It all seems reasonable enough, but I'm not exactly overwhelmed. In fairness I've got a certain bias due to promethease, which is often similarly criticized.

The UI is a little rough, but functional. Some of the artwork is quite good, but the look&feel of the dynamic elements isn't nearly as pretty. There are several visualizations, a relative risk which does not seem to render for me, a sized/colored ATCG (which seems a poor choice for what I think it wants to convey) as well as a 'visible human' style map which responds to mouse-overs and clicks. The last element is particularly well done, but seems more eye candy than scientific rigor. Notably visualizations in one of the main windows disappears when elements are moved outside the bounding box.

They appear to track 22 medical conditions which are classified as either high or low confidence, and for each there is a red/yellow/green high/med/low risk assignment. These also provide a % risk for european/asian/african populations vs 'my' data. Generally the site does link to pubmed, to backup the claims. I find the lack of an rs# makes it difficult to verify specific claims, but that is partly my bias showing through.

It all seems reasonable enough, but I'm not exactly overwhelmed. In fairness I've got a certain bias due to promethease, which is often similarly criticized.

The UI is a little rough, but functional. Some of the artwork is quite good, but the look&feel of the dynamic elements isn't nearly as pretty. There are several visualizations, a relative risk which does not seem to render for me, a sized/colored ATCG (which seems a poor choice for what I think it wants to convey) as well as a 'visible human' style map which responds to mouse-overs and clicks. The last element is particularly well done, but seems more eye candy than scientific rigor. Notably visualizations in one of the main windows disappears when elements are moved outside the bounding box.

They appear to track 22 medical conditions which are classified as either high or low confidence, and for each there is a red/yellow/green high/med/low risk assignment. These also provide a % risk for european/asian/african populations vs 'my' data. Generally the site does link to pubmed, to backup the claims. I find the lack of an rs# makes it difficult to verify specific claims, but that is partly my bias showing through.

It all seems reasonable enough, but I'm not exactly overwhelmed. In fairness I've got a certain bias due to promethease, which is often similarly criticized.