Contribution of genes in the GABAergic pathway to bipolar disorder and its executive function deficit in the Chinese Han population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the association between bipolar I disorder (BDI) and between cognitive deficits therein and SNPs in GABAergic receptor genes. The sample comprised 477 patients with BDI and 438 healthy controls, with three neurocognitive tests being administered in 123 patients and 164 controls. For three SNPs, rs505474, rs1398175, and rs4868029 in the GABRA2, GABRA4, and GABRP genes, respectively, their allele frequencies were significantly different between patients and controls (Bonferroni‐adjusted p = values 3.84 × 10−4, 9.92 × 10−3, and 1.22 × 10−2, respectively). Four haplotypes were significantly associated with BDI (TA and AG for rs3815762 and rs4868029 in GABRP, GG for rs11636988 and rs8024256 in GABRB3 and GAGG for rs2197414, rs4921195, rs13188991, and rs11956731 in GABRA6, with p values of 0.0038, 0.044, 0.0176, and 0.0267, respectively, on 10,000 permutations). Furthermore, the SNP (rs2912585) within 250 kb upstream of the GABRB3 gene displayed a strong association with the Tower of Hanoi (TOH) executive time in the patient group (p = 2.844 × 10−6). One other SNP (rs754661), which is located at the intronic region of the same gene, was associated with the global trait of the executive function and post hoc analysis showed significant SNP by group effect (p = 0.0094). Our study supports previous findings that GABAA receptor genes are associated with bipolar disorder; it also suggests that the GABAA genes, especially the GABRB3 gene, might play a role in the executive function deficit in bipolar disorder, although future replication with a larger sample size is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".