Genome‐wide association analysis accounting for environmental factors through propensity‐score matching: Application to stressful live events in major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stressful life events are an established trigger for depression and may contribute to the heterogeneity within genome-wide association analyses. With depression cases showing an excess of exposure to stressful events compared to controls, there is difficulty in distinguishing between "true" cases and a "normal" response to a stressful environment. This potential contamination of cases, and that from genetically at risk controls that have not yet experienced environmental triggers for onset, may reduce the power of studies to detect causal variants. In the RADIANT sample of 3,690 European individuals, we used propensity score matching to pair cases and controls on exposure to stressful life events. In 805 case-control pairs matched on stressful life event, we tested the influence of 457,670 common genetic variants on the propensity to depression under comparable level of adversity with a sign test. While this analysis produced no significant findings after genome-wide correction for multiple testing, we outline a novel methodology and perspective for providing environmental context in genetic studies. We recommend contextualizing depression by incorporating environmental exposure into genome-wide analyses as a complementary approach to testing gene-environment interactions. Possible explanations for negative findings include a lack of statistical power due to small sample size and conditional effects, resulting from the low rate of adequate matching. Our findings underscore the importance of collecting information on environmental risk factors in studies of depression and other complex phenotypes, so that sufficient sample sizes are available to investigate their effect in genome-wide association analysis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".