Using genotype data to distinguish pleiotropy from heterogeneity: deciphering coheritability in autoimmune and neuropsychiatric diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared genetic architecture between phenotypes may be driven by a common genetic basis (pleiotropy) or a subset of genetically similar individuals (heterogeneity). We developed BUHMBOX, a well-powered statistical method to distinguish pleiotropy from heterogeneity using genotype data. We observed a shared genetic basis between 11 of 17 tested autoimmune diseases and type I diabetes (T1D, p<10 12) and 11 of 17 tested autoimmune diseases and rheumatoid arthritis (RA, p<10-7). This sharing could not be explained by heterogeneity (corrected pBUHMBOX>0.2 using 6,670 T1D cases and 7,279 RA cases), suggesting that shared genetic features in autoimmunity are due to pleiotropy. We observed a shared genetic basis between seronegative and seropostive RA (p<10-22), explained by heterogeneity (pBUHMBOX=0.008 in 2,406 seronegative RA cases). Consistent with previous observations, we observed genetic sharing between major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia (p<10 9). This sharing is not explained by heterogeneity (pBUHMBOX=0.28 in 9,238 MDD cases).
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".