MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genomewide Association Studies: History, Rationale, and Prospects for Psychiatric Disorders

2009· review· en· W2154246724 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState University of New York Upstate Medical UniversityNational Institute of Mental HealthFeinberg School of MedicineUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnUniversitetet i OsloUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of TorontoRadboud UniversiteitTrinity College DublinUniversity College LondonBroad InstituteEli Lilly and CompanyState University of New YorkCardiff UniversityChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of WashingtonJohns Hopkins UniversityNorthShore University HealthSystemHelsingin YliopistoNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHarvard UniversityPfizerNorthwestern UniversityMassachusetts General HospitalMcMaster UniversityVirginia Commonwealth UniversityVanderbilt UniversityNorth Carolina State UniversityChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsPsychiatryAssociation (psychology)MedicinePsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a review of the history and empirical basis of genomewide association studies (GWAS), the rationale for GWAS of psychiatric disorders, results to date, limitations, and plans for GWAS meta-analyses. METHOD: A literature review was carried out, power and other issues discussed, and planned studies assessed. RESULTS: Most of the genomic DNA sequence differences between any two people are common (frequency >5%) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Because of localized patterns of correlation (linkage disequilibrium), 500,000 to 1,000,000 of these SNPs can test the hypothesis that one or more common variants explain part of the genetic risk for a disease. GWAS technologies can also detect some of the copy number variants (deletions and duplications) in the genome. Systematic study of rare variants will require large-scale resequencing analyses. GWAS methods have detected a remarkable number of robust genetic associations for dozens of common diseases and traits, leading to new pathophysiological hypotheses, although only small proportions of genetic variance have been explained thus far and therapeutic applications will require substantial further effort. Study design issues, power, and limitations are discussed. For psychiatric disorders, there are initial significant findings for common SNPs and for rare copy number variants, and many other studies are in progress. CONCLUSIONS: GWAS of large samples have detected associations of common SNPs and of rare copy number variants with psychiatric disorders. More findings are likely, since larger GWAS samples detect larger numbers of common susceptibility variants, with smaller effects. The Psychiatric GWAS Consortium is conducting GWAS meta-analyses for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Based on results for other diseases, larger samples will be required. The contribution of GWAS will depend on the true genetic architecture of each 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations450
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207