Serotonin system genes and hoarding with and without other obsessive–compulsive traits in a population‐based, pediatric sample: A genetic association study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hoarding, originally only considered a symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), is now categorized as a separate disorder in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). We studied candidate serotonergic genes and the distinctness of hoarding in children and adolescents and hypothesized that unique gene variants would be associated with hoarding alone. METHODS: We examined obsessive-compulsive (OC) traits, including hoarding, in a total of 5,213 pediatric participants in the community. We genotyped candidate serotonin genes (5-HTTLPR polymorphism in SLC6A4 for 2,018 individuals and single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs] across genes SLC6A4, HTR2A, and HTR1B for 4,711 individuals). In a previous study conducted by our group in the same sample, we identified a significant association between 5-HTTLPR and hoarding in males. In this study, we examined hoarding more closely by testing the association between serotonin gene variants and hoarding traits with and without other accompanying OC traits. RESULTS: +S] variant in 5-HTTLPR was significantly associated with hoarding alone in males (p-value of 0.009). There were no significant findings for 5-HTTLPR in females. There were no significant findings after correction for multiple comparisons using SNP array data, but top SNP findings suggested that variation downstream of HTR1B may be implicated in hoarding alone in females. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest specific serotonin gene variants are associated with hoarding traits alone, differing between sexes. Top findings are in line with our former study, suggesting that individuals with hoarding alone were driving previous results. Our paper supports hoarding disorder's new designation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".