Estimating the effects of copy‐number variants on intelligence using hierarchical Bayesian models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is challenging to estimate the phenotypic impact of the structural genome changes known as copy-number variations (CNVs), since there are many unique CNVs which are nonrecurrent, and most are too rare to be studied individually. In recent work, we found that CNV-aggregated genomic annotations, that is, specifically the intolerance to mutation as measured by the pLI score (probability of being loss-of-function intolerant), can be strong predictors of intellectual quotient (IQ) loss. However, this aggregation method only estimates the individual CNV effects indirectly. Here, we propose the use of hierarchical Bayesian models to directly estimate individual effects of rare CNVs on measures of intelligence. Annotation information on the impact of major mutations in genomic regions is extracted from genomic databases and used to define prior information for the approach we call HBIQ. We applied HBIQ to the analysis of CNV deletions and duplications from three datasets and identified several genomic regions containing CNVs demonstrating significant deleterious effects on IQ, some of which validate previously known associations. We also show that several CNVs were identified as deleterious by HBIQ even if they have a zero pLI score, and the converse is also true. Furthermore, we show that our new model yields higher out-of-sample concordance (78%) for predicting the consequences of carrying known recurrent CNVs compared with our previous approach.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".