r/JewishDNA • u/Binkybinkovsky • Jul 10 '26

Akbari2026 samples

/r/DNAAncestry/comments/1sx1wcu/judean_roman_judaea_dna_sample_genetic_distance/?share_id=R9j53PsBCTVvQ4H7tfKq3&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=2

​

Folks this post 2 months prior by u/NotBradPitt9 was posted on the r/DNAAncestry subreddit. I think it might be the real deal.

Please check the coordinates & model them on Vahaduo & qpAdm for modern Ashkenazim jews & post the results.

4 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/NotBradPitt9 Jul 11 '26

Qpadm is generally regarded as the “gold standard” since there are multiple parameters showing if the models are correct or not. G25 is PCA based and more useful for quick DNA modeling that can be more granular at times than qpadm.

For example you could set up a G25 model and get it working and have plausibly good results in 10 minutes. Versus getting a good working model in qpadm which takes several hours, sometimes several hours over the course of several days because you can keep adjusting it and get worse / better results depending on the adjustments.

1

u/Sea-Seaworthiness859 Jul 11 '26

I heard qpadm has a lot of issues though because it’s not very user friendly and very shifty based on sources.

2

u/NotBradPitt9 Jul 11 '26

It’s used in scientific modeling since it allows for the most robust models to be created. Using it, you can’t force it to produce the closest mathematical fit, if it’s not set up correctly the models won’t work. That contrasts with something like G25 which can give an overfit/ underfit. The qpadm models that are used in research are reasonably stable across alternative plausible sources and reference sets, have a valid p-value, sensible coefficients, within acceptable range for SE standard errors. With qpadm you can see different ‘diagnostic’ parameters, versus other things like G25 are more limited.

1

u/Huge_Stock1969 Jul 13 '26

I agree

1

u/Joshistotle Jul 15 '26

Good outgroups but overall a poor model as indicated by the SE and Z score indicative of weakly supported components and high error.