Association between schizophrenia polygenic score and psychotic symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease: meta-analysis of 11 cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Psychosis (delusions and hallucinations) is common in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and associated with worse clinical outcomes including accelerated cognitive decline and shorter time to nursing home admission. Atypical antipsychotics have limited efficacy which, along with emerging genomic research, suggests some overlapping mechanisms with other disorders characterized by psychosis, like schizophrenia. In this study, we tested whether polygenic risk score (PRS) for schizophrenia was associated with psychotic symptoms in AD. Methods Schizophrenia PRS was calculated using Psychiatric Genomics Consortium data at 10 GWAS p-value thresholds ( P T ) in 3,173 AD cases from 11 cohort studies. Association between PRS and AD psychosis status was tested by logistic regression in each cohort individually and the results meta-analyzed. Results The schizophrenia PRS was associated with psychosis in AD at an optimum P T of The strongest association was for delusions where a one standard deviation increase in PRS was associated with a 1.17-fold increased risk (95% CI: 1.07-1.3; p=0.001). Conclusion These new findings point towards psychosis in AD – and particularly delusions – sharing some genetic liability with schizophrenia, and support a transdiagnostic view of psychotic symptoms across the lifespan.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".