MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103340426 · doi:10.1101/2020.11.17.20233106

Combined polygenic risk scores of different psychiatric traits predict general and specific psychopathology in childhood

2020· preprint· en· W3103340426 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexander Neumann, Alexia Jolicoeur‐Martineau, Eszter Székely, Hannah Sallis, Kieran O’Donnel, Celia M.T. Greenwood, Robert D. Levitan, Michael J. Meaney, Ashley Wazana, Jonathan Evans, Henning Tiemeier

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoJewish General Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of BristolUniversity of TorontoErasmus Medisch CentrumMcGill UniversityEuropean CommissionMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsPsychopathologyNeuroticismChild psychopathologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPopulationResearch Domain CriteriaPsychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) operationalize genetic propensity towards a particular mental disorder and hold promise as early predictors of psychopathology, but before a PRS can be used clinically, explanatory power must be increased and the specificity for a psychiatric domain established. To enable early detection it is crucial to study these psychometric properties in childhood. We examined whether PRSs associate more with general or with specific psychopathology in school-aged children. Additionally, we tested whether psychiatric PRSs can be combined into a multi-PRS score for improved performance. Methods We computed 16 PRSs based on GWASs of psychiatric phenotypes, but also neuroticism and cognitive ability, in mostly adult populations. Study participants were 9247 school-aged children from three population-based cohorts of the DREAM-BIG consortium: ALSPAC (UK), The Generation R Study (Netherlands) and MAVAN (Canada). We associated each PRS with general and specific psychopathology factors, derived from a bifactor model based on self-, parental-, teacher-, and observer reports. After fitting each PRS in separate models, we also tested a multi-PRS model, in which all PRSs are entered simultaneously as predictors of the general psychopathology factor. Results Seven PRSs were associated with the general psychopathology factor after multiple testing adjustment, two with specific externalizing and five with specific internalizing psychopathology. PRSs predicted general psychopathology independently of each other, with the exception of depression and depressive symptom PRSs. Most PRSs associated with a specific psychopathology domain, were also associated with general child psychopathology. Conclusions The results suggest that PRSs based on current GWASs of psychiatric phenotypes tend to be associated with general psychopathology, or both general and specific psychiatric domains, but not with one specific psychopathology domain only. Furthermore, PRSs can be combined to improve predictive ability. PRS users should therefore be conscious of non-specificity and consider using multiple PRSs simultaneously, when predicting psychiatric disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207