A genome-wide association study identifies genetic loci associated with specific lobar brain volumes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brain lobar volumes are heritable but genetic studies are limited. We performed genome-wide association studies of frontal, occipital, parietal and temporal lobe volumes in 16,016 individuals, and replicated our findings in 8,789 individuals. We identified six genetic loci associated with specific lobar volumes independent of intracranial volume. Two loci, associated with occipital (6q22.32) and temporal lobe volume (12q14.3), were previously reported to associate with intracranial and hippocampal volume, respectively. We identified four loci previously unknown to affect brain volumes: 3q24 for parietal lobe volume, and 1q22, 4p16.3 and 14q23.1 for occipital lobe volume. The associated variants were located in regions enriched for histone modifications ( DAAM1 and THBS3 ), or close to genes causing Mendelian brain-related diseases ( ZIC4 and FGFRL1 ). No genetic overlap between lobar volumes and neurological or psychiatric diseases was observed. Our findings reveal part of the complex genetics underlying brain development and suggest a role for regulatory regions in determining brain volumes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".