Examination of the shared genetic basis of anorexia nervosa and obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anorexia nervosa (AN) and obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) are often comorbid and likely to share genetic risk factors. Hence, we examine their shared genetic background using a cross-disorder GWAS meta-analysis of 3495 AN cases, 2688 OCD cases, and 18,013 controls. We confirmed a high genetic correlation between AN and OCD ( r g = 0.49 ± 0.13, p = 9.07 × 10 −7 ) and a sizable SNP heritability (SNP h 2 = 0.21 ± 0.02) for the cross-disorder phenotype. Although no individual loci reached genome-wide significance, the cross-disorder phenotype showed strong positive genetic correlations with other psychiatric phenotypes (e.g., r g = 0.36 with bipolar disorder and 0.34 with neuroticism) and negative genetic correlations with metabolic phenotypes (e.g., r g = −0.25 with body mass index and −0.20 with triglycerides). Follow-up analyses revealed that although AN and OCD overlap heavily in their shared risk with other psychiatric phenotypes, the relationship with metabolic and anthropometric traits is markedly stronger for AN than for OCD. We further tested whether shared genetic risk for AN/OCD was associated with particular tissue or cell-type gene expression patterns and found that the basal ganglia and medium spiny neurons were most enriched for AN–OCD risk, consistent with neurobiological findings for both disorders. Our results confirm and extend genetic epidemiological findings of shared risk between AN and OCD and suggest that larger GWASs are warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".