MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769257088 · doi:10.1186/s13073-017-0488-z

Impact of IQ on the diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray in a community sample of adults with schizophrenia

2017· article· en· W2769257088 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chelsea Lowther, Daniele Merico, Gregory Costain, Jack Waserman, Kerry Boyd, Abdul Noor, Marsha Speevak, Dimitri J. Stavropoulos, John Wei, Anath C. Lionel, Christian R. Marshall, Stephen W. Scherer, Anne S. Bassett

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHumber River Regional HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteOntario GenomicsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Copy-number variationMedicineOdds ratioPsychiatryIntelligence quotientIntellectual disabilityGenome-wide association studyPopulationEtiologyMicroarrayGeneticsInternal medicineGenotypeCognitionBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a severe psychiatric disorder associated with IQ deficits. Rare copy number variations (CNVs) have been established to play an important role in the etiology of schizophrenia. Several of the large rare CNVs associated with schizophrenia have been shown to negatively affect IQ in population-based controls where no major neuropsychiatric disorder is reported. The aim of this study was to examine the diagnostic yield of microarray testing and the functional impact of genome-wide rare CNVs in a community ascertained cohort of adults with schizophrenia and low (< 85) or average (≥ 85) IQ. METHODS: We recruited 546 adults of European ancestry with schizophrenia from six community psychiatric clinics in Canada. Each individual was assigned to the low or average IQ group based on standardized tests and/or educational attainment. We used rigorous methods to detect genome-wide rare CNVs from high-resolution microarray data. We compared the burden of rare CNVs classified as pathogenic or as a variant of unknown significance (VUS) between each of the IQ groups and the genome-wide burden and functional impact of rare CNVs after excluding individuals with a pathogenic CNV. RESULTS: There were 39/546 (7.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.2-9.7%) schizophrenia participants with at least one pathogenic CNV detected, significantly more of whom were from the low IQ group (odds ratio [OR] = 5.01 [2.28-11.03], p = 0.0001). Secondary analyses revealed that individuals with schizophrenia and average IQ had the lowest yield of pathogenic CNVs (n = 9/325; 2.8%), followed by those with borderline intellectual functioning (n = 9/130; 6.9%), non-verbal learning disability (n = 6/29; 20.7%), and co-morbid intellectual disability (n = 15/62; 24.2%). There was no significant difference in the burden of rare CNVs classified as a VUS between any of the IQ subgroups. There was a significantly (p=0.002) increased burden of rare genic duplications in individuals with schizophrenia and low IQ that persisted after excluding individuals with a pathogenic CNV. CONCLUSIONS: Using high-resolution microarrays we were able to demonstrate for the first time that the burden of pathogenic CNVs in schizophrenia differs significantly between IQ subgroups. The results of this study have implications for clinical practice and may help inform future rare variant studies of schizophrenia using next-generation sequencing technologies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207