Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic association studies of obsessive‐compulsive disorder (OCD) have yielded inconsistent findings because those studies have tended to have small sample sizes and low statistical power, thereby making it difficult to reliably detect small genetic effects. Meta‐analysis combines individual studies thereby increasing the power to detect small effects. Meta‐analysis suggests that OCD is associated with serotonin‐related polymorphisms ( 5‐HTTLPR and HTR2A ) and, in males only, polymorphisms involving catecholamine modulation ( COMT and MAOA ). There is also suggestive evidence that many other polymorphisms are associated with OCD. Effects of individual polymorphisms are small, suggesting that OCD is shaped by multiple genes that each make small, incremental contributions to the risk of developing the disorder. Twin studies show that there are genetic similarities and differences across OCD subtypes (early versus late onset) and across major types of OCD symptoms (e.g. washing, checking, and ordering). Genetic association studies of specific subtypes and symptoms may advance our understanding of OCD. Key Concepts: Genetic association studies, typically with small sample sizes, tend to fail to reliably identify OCD‐related polymorphisms, because genetic effects tend to be small. Meta‐analysis, combining numerous genetic studies, indicates that numerous genes play a small, incremental role in the risk of developing OCD. The genes most robustly associated with OCD are serotonin‐related and, in males, are those broadly involved in catecholamine modulation. There is suggestive evidence that other genes are involved. Haplotypes associated with glutamate regulation may also be associated with OCD. Twin studies can facilitate molecular genetic research by shedding light on aetiologic differences among OCD symptoms and subtypes. Twin research shows that some genetic factors are common to all OCD symptoms, whereas others are symptom‐specific. Genetic association studies of specific subtypes and symptoms may advance our understanding of OCD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".