Cortical Surfaces Mediate the Relationship Between Polygenic Scores for Intelligence and General Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent large-scale, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of genetic loci associated with general intelligence. The cumulative influence of these loci on brain structure is unknown. We examined if cortical morphology mediates the relationship between GWAS-derived polygenic scores for intelligence (PSi) and g-factor. Using the effect sizes from one of the largest GWAS meta-analysis on general intelligence to date, PSi were calculated among 10 P value thresholds. PSi were assessed for the association with g-factor performance, cortical thickness (CT), and surface area (SA) in two large imaging-genetics samples (IMAGEN N = 1651; IntegraMooDS N = 742). PSi explained up to 5.1% of the variance of g-factor in IMAGEN (F1,1640 = 12.2-94.3; P < 0.005), and up to 3.0% in IntegraMooDS (F1,725 = 10.0-21.0; P < 0.005). The association between polygenic scores and g-factor was partially mediated by SA and CT in prefrontal, anterior cingulate, insula, and medial temporal cortices in both samples (PFWER-corrected < 0.005). The variance explained by mediation was up to 0.75% in IMAGEN and 0.77% in IntegraMooDS. Our results provide evidence that cumulative genetic load influences g-factor via cortical structure. The consistency of our results across samples suggests that cortex morphology could be a novel potential biomarker for neurocognitive dysfunction that is among the most intractable psychiatric symptoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".