Dissecting the Genetic Heterogeneity of Depression Through Age at Onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide studies in major depression have identified few replicated associations, potentially due to heterogeneity within the disorder. Several studies have suggested that age at onset (AAO) can distinguish sub-types of depression with specific heritable components. This paper investigates the role of AAO in the genetic susceptibility for depression using genome-wide association data on 2,746 cases and 1,594 screened controls from the RADIANT studies, with replication performed in 1,471 cases and 1,403 controls from two Munich studies. Three methods were used to analyze AAO: First a time-to-event analysis with controls censored, secondly comparing controls to case-subsets defined using AAO cut-offs, and lastly analyzing AAO as a quantitative trait. In the time-to-event analysis three SNPs reached suggestive significance (P < 5E-06), overlapping with the original case-control analysis of this study. In a case-control analysis using AAO thresholds, SNPs in 10 genomic regions showed suggestive association though again none reached genome-wide significance. Lastly, case-only analysis of AAO as a quantitative trait resulted in 5 SNPs reaching suggestive significance. Sex specific analysis was performed as a secondary analysis, yielding one SNP reaching genome-wide significance in early-onset males. No SNPs achieved significance in the replication study after correction for multiple testing. Analysis of AAO as a quantitative trait did suggest that, across all SNPs, common genetic variants explained a large proportion of the variance (51%, P = 0.04). This study provides the first focussed analysis of the genetic contribution to AAO in depression, and establishes a statistical framework that can be applied to a quantitative trait underlying any disorder.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".