MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3105484149 · doi:10.1101/146936

Genome-wide association study of delay discounting in 23,217 adult research participants of European ancestry

2017· preprint· en· W3105484149 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Sanchez‐Roige, Pierre Fontanillas, Sarah L. Elson, Anita Pandit, Ellen M. Schmidt, Johanna R. Foerster, Gonçalo R. Abecasis, Joshua C. Gray, Harriet de Wit, Lea K. Davis, James MacKillop, Abraham A. Palmer

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHomewood Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenome-wide association studyGenetic associationSNPDiscountingSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Delay discountingSingle-nucleotide polymorphismCognitionPsychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyGeneticsGenotypeBiologyPsychiatryGeneImpulsivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Delay discounting ( DD ), which is the tendency to discount the value of delayed versus current rewards, is elevated in a constellation of diseases and behavioral conditions. We performed a genome-wide association study of DD using 23,127 research participants of European ancestry. The most significantly associated SNP was rs6528024 ( P = 2.40 × 10 −8 ), which is located in an intron of the gene GPM6B . We also showed that 12% of the variance in DD was accounted for by genotype, and that the genetic signature of DD overlapped with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, major depression, smoking, personality, cognition, and body weight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicBehavioral Health and Interventions→French-language works237,207→