Identification of novel risk loci for restless legs syndrome in genome-wide association studies in individuals of European ancestry: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restless legs syndrome is a prevalent chronic neurological disorder with potentially severe mental and physical health consequences. Clearer understanding of the underlying pathophysiology is needed to improve treatment options. We did a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) to identify potential molecular targets. METHODS: ) were tested for replication in an independent GWAS of 30 770 cases and 286 913 controls, followed by a joint analysis of the discovery and replication stages. We did gene annotation, pathway, and gene-set-enrichment analyses and studied the genetic correlations between restless legs syndrome and traits of interest. FINDINGS: We identified and replicated 13 new risk loci for restless legs syndrome and confirmed the previously identified six risk loci. MEIS1 was confirmed as the strongest genetic risk factor for restless legs syndrome (odds ratio 1·92, 95% CI 1·85-1·99). Gene prioritisation, enrichment, and genetic correlation analyses showed that identified pathways were related to neurodevelopment and highlighted genes linked to axon guidance (associated with SEMA6D), synapse formation (NTNG1), and neuronal specification (HOXB cluster family and MYT1). INTERPRETATION: Identification of new candidate genes and associated pathways will inform future functional research. Advances in understanding of the molecular mechanisms that underlie restless legs syndrome could lead to new treatment options. We focused on common variants; thus, additional studies are needed to dissect the roles of rare and structural variations. FUNDING: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Helmholtz Zentrum München-Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt, National Research Institutions, NHS Blood and Transplant, National Institute for Health Research, British Heart Foundation, European Commission, European Research Council, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and UK Medical Research Council.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".